What is a jinn ?
-
Please also read the following extract of the book NonZero, by Robert Wright, with a special emphasis on what I have underlined.
You will notice that all this behavior patterns of the chiefs/jinns (and especially their large ego and their usage of idol worship) are described in the Quran.
See also http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5787.0
Three centuries ago, when Europeans in North America encountered the chief of the Natchez Indians, they couldn't help but notice his high self-esteem. One Jesuit priest observed that he "knows nothing on earth more dignified than himself." And, since the chief knew nothing in the heavens greater than the sun, it seemed only natural to deem himself "brother of the Sun." This logic made sense to the sun-worshiping Natchez people, who vied for proximity to the chief's divine aura. Upon his death, those who had the honor of accompanying him into the afterlife would swallow enough tobacco to lose consciousness and then be ritually strangled.
From a modern vantage point, it is hard to relate either to the chief or to his followers. Few politicians today consider themselves gods or demigods?or, at any rate, few would admit it. And few citizens aspire to spend eternity in the company of politicians. It's tempting, indeed, to dismiss the Natchez people as a bizarre aberration. But they were actually pretty typical?typical of human beings living in a particular phase of cultural evolution the chiefdom, in which numerous villages are subordinated to firm, centralized political leadership, and that leadership is distinctly institutionalized.
So far as we can tell from the archaeological record, all the ancient state-level societies were preceded in cultural evolution by chiefdoms. So far as we can tell from the ethnographic record, the leaders of chiefdoms have routinely claimed special access to divine force. And, remarkably, their people have typically considered this claim plausible.
How can we say with confidence that "chiefdom" is a standard phase of cultural evolution, a natural transition between the "Big Man" society and the states of the ancient world? Since the rubble of prehistory by definition holds no written records, what lets us discern the social structure of a long-lost people? Here the chief's characteristically large ego becomes a good source of illumination.
We know from chiefdoms observed over the past few centuries that chiefs go to great lengths to underscore their chieflinesss. Some Polynesian chiefs turned their entire faces into ornate works of art, enduring a painful, tattoo-like engraving process that leaves the skin looking like the leather on a fancy cowboy boot. Other chiefs have force-fed their wives into obesity, creating vivid testament to their affluence. Unfortunately for archaeologists, fat cells and engraved skin don't fossilize well. But other common forms of chiefly self-advertisement are more enduring, such as monumental architecture, often built in tribute to (and as a reminder of) the chief's distinguished lineage.
Hence the huge mounds built in North America as tombs for past chiefs. Or the pyramid-like temples on Tahiti, or the earliest ziggurats in Mesopotamia. The giant stone heads on Easter Island, up to ten meters tall, also suggest social organization beyond the Big Man level. Using these and other hallmarks of a chiefdom, archaeologists have found a clear pattern After agriculture first spreads across a region, chiefdoms tend to follow.
This doesn't mean that farming is a prerequisite for a chiefdom. Natural abundance, and attendant population density, will occasionally do the trick. As we've seen, the Northwest Indians were on the verge of chiefdomhood. And the Calusa of Florida, also coastal hunter-gatherers, were a full-fledged chiefdom, whose leader dispatched an armada of eighty canoes (not enough) to battle Ponce de Leon.
Nor, on the other hand, are we saying that chiefdoms inevitably follow fast on the domestication of plants and animals. In the jungles of Amazonia or New Guinea, farming doesn't become very productive very fast. But given a friendly environment and a millennium or two, widespread agriculture does seem to propel social organization into the age of chiefdoms.
Thus, farming and cattle ranching come to England around 4000 B.C., and within a thousand years "megaliths"?orderly arrangements of boulders, as at Stonehenge--start appearing. The same pattern? first farming, then chiefdoms?is found earlier in continental Europe. (Julius Caesar would happen upon chiefdoms when he ventured into Germany and Gaul.) In Mesoamerica?Central America and the south of modern Mexico?farming villages were common by 2,000 B.C., and within a thousand years, immense stone heads, in the Easter Island genre, had been carved. And so on. Chiefdoms, the scholar Randolph Widmer has written, "were at various times the most common form of society found throughout Europe, Africa, the Americas, Melanesia, Polynesia, the Near East, and Asia." Around the world, with the multiple invention and rapid spread of agriculture, cultural evolution marched on. Chiefdoms sustained the basic trend toward larger and more complex social organization.
They seem to have flourished in part by harnessing large quantities of non-zero-sumness. The chief, like the Northwest Indians' Big Man, orchestrated much of the necessary coordination. But the orchestra was larger?thousands, even tens of thousands of people, sometimes spread over diverse landscapes, with diverse resources. So economic integration could be deeper and broader, with more division of labor and larger swaths of regular economic intercourse. Capital projects could be more ambitious?irrigation systems, even the occasional dam.
Sounds wonderful. But it poses two puzzles.
First, how could the cold logic of non-zero-sumness thrive in a hotbed of ridiculous superstition? How, if at all, did things like sun worship and ritual strangulation translate into economic efficiency?
The second puzzle is how the stereotypical chief could be a faithful steward of the public good. Chiefs, after all, aren't known for their sensitivity to the welfare of others. Just ask four sixteenth-century Calusa village leaders who were subordinate to the paramount chief. Not subordinate enough, apparently. He cut off their heads and displayed them at a party. The followers of Chief Powhatan (father of the Indian princess Pocahontas) were described this way by the Englishman John Smith "At his feet they present whatsoever he commndeth and at the least frown of his brow, their greatest spirits will tremble with fear." This attitude is not a good antidote to a politician's self-aggrandizing tendencies.
One standard response to this puzzle is simple Chiefs actually didn't serve the public; they duped the public into serving them, and religion was part of the duping. As one archaeologist puts it, "Chiefs coopt the religious authority of the community for themselves." In this view, a chiefdom's division of labor and its public works did yield positive-sums?more output than the same people could have produced working alone but the chiefs then appropriated the gains rather than returning them to the people whose synergy created them. Chiefs, in short, were parasites.
Here we revisit a venerable debate we've already touched on, a debate that applies to much of human history the question of exploitation by ruling elites. At one extreme are Panglossian optimists, often of a rightward political bent, who can find the sunny side of the most gratuitous social inequality. At the other extreme are those--typically on the left, and sometimes Marxist?who see exploitation everywhere they look.
One place to seek evidence in this debate is Polynesia. This vast stretch of the south Pacific, dotted sporadically by islands, is a laboratory of chiefdomhood. Between 200 B.C. and A.D. 1,000, settlers leapfrogged from island to island, starting new societies. In some cases, such as Hawaii (settled around A.D. 400), these social experiments were thereafter isolated from the others. Such seclusion notwithstanding, a general pattern emerged across Polynesia the blossoming of chiefdoms that grew more complex over time. The question is Was it "good" complexity, fairly equitable in its benefits, or was it "bad" complexity? And where did religion fit in?
THE POLYNESIAN CHIEFDOMS
The generic Polynesian chief had plenty of sacred clout. He was an earthly representative of the gods, the conduit through which divine power, or mana, flowed into society. Indeed, he possessed tapu-such sanctity that commoners were not to come in direct contact with him. (Hence the modern word taboo.) Some chiefs were carried around on litters and had trained spokesmen, "talking chiefs," who handled the dirty business of public communication. The Polynesian chief, observed one western scholar, "stands to the people as a god."...
http//www.nonzero.org/chap7.htm
-
Peace,
I do agree that the term jinn also implies chiefs. But i don't believe it refers to one thing in particulair. Jinn means something hidden/concealed/rarely seen. It is like the term walking being, does this refer to humans alone? Defenitly not. Millions of species fall under this term. It is not a title of one species as human or spider, it is a description of an attribute anything that walks. The same applies for the term jinnhidden/concealed/rarely seen things/beings. This is not a title refering to one species. It refers to anything that is concealed/rarely seen that fits the context of the verses where they are mentioned. To believe jinns can only refer to one thing, leaders or mythological invisible beings etc., is the same as saying walking beings can only refer to humans. Jinn is not a title but a description of an attribute which encompasses many things.
Peace
-
This is still my current understanding, whereas another translation may fit better in some verses.
Feel free to ask me questions in this thread
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4435.0Peace
PS I am glad you are now opening the links to other threads
Thanks bro
I will start with this but I have many, now there will be no emotional refutes we only need logical Quran refutes
you say Jinns means "the human leaders", or "The humans who have power and authority", while Ins means "Ordinary human", or "A Human with no power or Aurhority"
Would that verse then is only talking to the ordinary humans and not to their leaders in power (The Jinns)?
O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women;- reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you) for Allah ever watches over you.
(1)
But please bro don't try and use this argument
Nas <> Ins
because 500% Nas = Ins
I have plenty or these sort of questions bro, and btw I only read previous posts for those whom I'm interested to open a dialogue with
Salam
Peace Ahmed
-
I think the word nafs would have better been translated by the word ?soul? (?a single soul?) than by the word ?person? (?a single person?).
-
Contrary to the popular interpretations, I do not think this verse is referring to the primary creation of the human kind. I think it refers to the creation of each of us, from a drop of sperm, in the wombs of our mothers.
This is confirmed in the following verses
He has been fully aware of you since He initiated you from the Earth, and while you were embryos in your mothers' wombs
And God brought you out of your mothers wombs while you knew nothing.
O mankind, if you are in doubt as to the resurrection, then We have created you from dirt, then from a seed, then from an embryo, then from a fetus developed and undeveloped so that We make it clear to you. And We settle in the wombs what We wish to an appointed time
He created you from one person, then He made from it its mate. . He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, a creation after a creation in three darkness?s.
O mankind, We created you from a male and female
- The Arabic words can have different meanings depending of the context. As an example, the word azwaj can mean ?mates?, ?spouses?, or ?pairs?. In the same way, the word ins can refer to ?mankind?, or it can also refer to the ?common people? when it is used with the word jinn.
Here is an example
Say I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind, The King of mankind, The god of mankind, From the evil of the sneaking whisperer, Who whispers into the chests of mankind, From among the jinn and nas.
NB nas is the plural of ins.
In these verses, the word ins is used in the sense of ?mankind? in every occurrence, except the last. Translating ins by ?mankind? in the last verse makes no sense.
Here is how I would translate it
Who whispers into the chests of mankind, among the chiefs and commoners.Please note that God is never said to be The lord of mankind and jinnkind, but the lord of mankind only. So, the ins and jinn that are mentioned in can only be 2 classes of human beings.
This is in line with the following verse
I did not create the jinn and the ins except to serve Me.Peace
-
-
Peace JM
Here is another serious one bro, in the following verses we read
26 We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape;
27 And the Jinn race, We had created before, from the fire of a scorching wind.(26)
(27)Two serious questions must be raised by the above verses
- were the human leaders created differently from the ordinary humans? sounds like two different races to me
- were the human leaders created BEFORE the ordinary humans?
see bro, that whole concept started to fall over
I still have more but I will need a bit of a break please
Cheers
Peace Ahmed,
My opinion is that these verses do not refer to the primary creation of 2 different species.
The expression Khulika min is also used in the verse Khuliqa al-insanu min AAajal, literally ?He created man out of haste?.
Does it mean that God took some haste, then mixed it with clay to create the human being ?
Obviously not.
It simply means that man is naturally hasty.Therefore, I think that the 2 verses you have quoted describe the mindsets of the jinn (chiefs) and ins (commoners), the commoners being malleable (like clay), and the chiefs being fiery (like fire).
This is confirmed by the verses I have quoted in this post
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5787.0A similar understanding can be found in the commentary of Muhammad Ali
http//www.muslim.org/english-quran/ch015.pdf, see note 27aPeace
-
Peace Ahmed
Peace bro
- I think the word nafs would have better been translated by the word ?soul? (?a single soul?) than by the word ?person? (?a single person?).
I agree, I just copied one of the many flawed translation around the net, the above suppose to be by Yusuf Ali
- Contrary to the popular interpretations, I do not think this verse is referring to the primary creation of the human kind. I think it refers to the creation of each of us, from a drop of sperm, in the wombs of our mothers.
This surely does not make any sense, let?s break the verse and see if you are right
Let?s try Picthal this time
O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Be careful of your duty toward Allah in Whom ye claim (your rights) of one another, and toward the wombs (that bare you). Lo! Allah hath been a watcher over you.
(1)
, ? O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord?
, ? Who created you from a single soul?, well the message does not sound about each one of us, RATHER ALL OF US TOGETHER, this is obvious from the word ?FROM A SINGLE SOUL? which is Adam for sure, ? from it created its mate?, now it may get a bit complicated under your concept, if the message is about each one of us then my mate was not created from me really, do you agree?, how about your mate, was it created from you?, hmmm, let me guess, I guess not
, ? and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women?, well bro, can you see the flaw in your concept or not yet?, well let me explain, me and my mate may not spread a multitude of men and women, so far they are only TWO, how about you?, well how about the ones who will be living almost at the end of time?, would the above verse be a contradiction then under your wrong understanding?, well how about the ones who can?t have children at all ?either by choice or forced?? would that verse be talking about them?, of course not bro, it is simply talking about Adam and his mate then all those who spread from them, this makes sense to a child man, I can't believe how many members here twist and play with the Quran verses as they do in here, well the sunnis do not do it as much to be honest,
This is confirmed in the following verses
What is confirmed bro?, that 41 is talking about each one of us?
He has been fully aware of you since He initiated you from the Earth, and while you were embryos in your mothers' wombs
mate, what are you going on about in here to say this is confirmed, mate please be sensible otherwise you are doing exactly what brother Ayman is doing, I can?t believe this man, there is no relation whatsoever between 41 and 5332
And God brought you out of your mothers wombs while you knew nothing.
but what that has to do with the following sequence
- Allah created one Nafs
- From that Nafs Allah created its partner
- From the two, many men and women spread
There is no link whatsoever between the above and 1678 but thanks anyway
O mankind, if you are in doubt as to the resurrection, then We have created you from dirt, then from a seed, then from an embryo, then from a fetus developed and undeveloped so that We make it clear to you. And We settle in the wombs what We wish to an appointed time
This is just a different sequence to the Adam/Partner/All humanity sequence, please don?t compare apple with mangos
He created you from one person, then He made from it its mate. . He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, a creation after a creation in three darkness?s.
well, now we are talking 396 sure is talking about 2/3 of the sequence mentioned in 41, it only mentioned the first two sequences of creating Adam then its partner, the third sequence mentioned in 41 (the spread of many men and women from Adam and his partner? is not mentioned here and that?s about it really
if anything is confirmed it will be the first two sequences i.e. the creation if Adam then from it Allah created his partner
O mankind, We created you from a male and female
That is right but this is a general statement that have exceptions
For example Adam was created from nothing ?not from a male and female?
Adam?s partner was created from a male only ?not from a male and female?
Jesus was created from a female only ?not from a male and female?
So Allah did all possibilities if you consider that all humans coming from Adam and his partner excluding Jesus came from a male and female, so 4913 is just a general law that does not apply at least to Adam, his partner and Jesus
- The Arabic words can have different meanings depending of the context. As an example, the word azwaj can mean ?mates?, ?spouses?, or ?pairs?. In the same way, the word ins can refer to ?mankind?, or it can also refer to the ?common people? when it is used with the word jinn.
while I agree that the context controls the meaning the rest of the above is non sense bro, I?m sorry
Here is an example
Say I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind, The King of mankind, The god of mankind, From the evil of the sneaking whisperer, Who whispers into the chests of mankind, From among the jinn and ins.
In these verses, the word ins is used in the sense of ?mankind? in every occurrence, except the last. Translating ins by ?mankind? in the last verse makes no sense.
Sorry, what was that? Sounds like a case of desperation to me, anyway the last word of this sura is ?Nas? not ?Ins? while I agree both are the same I still can?t see your point
in fact the abive sura clearly shows that the Nas and Jinn are different races because Allah said at the end ?From among the jinna and Nas?.
Here is how I would translate it
Who whispers into the chests of mankind, among the chiefs and commoners.ok, thanks bro
Please note that God is never said to be The lord of mankind and jinnkind, but the lord of mankind only. So, the ins and jinn that are mentioned in can only be 2 classes of human beings.
Mate, I?m sorry I hate wasting my time with this silly arguments, so the Quran didn?t tell us that Allah is the Lord of the chickens, would that mean for you that the chickens is a class of humans? Or the chickens don?t have a God?
This is in line with the following verse
I did not create the jinn and the ins except to serve Me.Peace
and how about the chickens?
Salam bro and good night
-
Peace Ahmed,
Please note I have created another thread to discuss the issue of the creation of man (with or without Adam)
- The Arabic words can have different meanings depending of the context. As an example, the word azwaj can mean ?mates?, ?spouses?, or ?pairs?. In the same way, the word ins can refer to ?mankind?, or it can also refer to the ?common people? when it is used with the word jinn.
while I agree that the context controls the meaning the rest of the above is non sense bro, I?m sorry
Here is an example
Say I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind, The King of mankind, The god of mankind, From the evil of the sneaking whisperer, Who whispers into the chests of mankind, From among the jinn and ins.
In these verses, the word ins is used in the sense of ?mankind? in every occurrence, except the last. Translating ins by ?mankind? in the last verse makes no sense.
Sorry, what was that? Sounds like a case of desperation to me, anyway the last word of this sura is ?Nas? not ?Ins? while I agree both are the same I still can?t see your point
I have corrected my post. Thanks.
in fact the abive sura clearly shows that the Nas and Jinn are different races because Allah said at the end ?From among the jinna and Nas?.
Here is how I would translate it
Who whispers into the chests of mankind, among the chiefs and commoners.ok, thanks bro
Please note that God is never said to be The lord of mankind and jinnkind, but the lord of mankind only. So, the ins and jinn that are mentioned in can only be 2 classes of human beings.
Mate, I?m sorry I hate wasting my time with this silly arguments, so the Quran didn?t tell us that Allah is the Lord of the chickens, would that mean for you that the chickens is a class of humans? Or the chickens don?t have a God?
This is in line with the following verse
I did not create the jinn and the ins except to serve Me.Peace
and how about the chickens?
Salam bro and good night
This is a good remark, this will give me the opportunity to show that there are something very special with the jinns.
In , God said he has created the ins and the jinn only to serve him.
Why did God forget the chickens ?Well, the response in this verse
And We have committed to Hell many Jinn and humans; they had hearts with which they did not comprehend, and they had eyes with which they did not see, and they had ears with which they did not hear. They are like cattle; no, they are even more astray. These are the unaware ones.
In this verse, we learn again that many of the jinn and the ins will go to hell. Again, God forgot to tell us about the fate of the chickens !
Why ?
Simply because only the ins and the jinn have the possibility of rejecting God?s message. Only these 2 kind of beings can do that, simply because they are both humans, endowed with free will.And if We had wished, We could have given every soul its guidance, but the word from Me has taken effect, that I will fill Hell with Jinn and humans all together.
This verse confirms it the jinn and ins both have a soul, to which guidance can be sent. The chicken are never said to have a soul.
?O you tribes of Jinn and humans, did not messengers come to you from amongst you and relate to you My revelations, and warn you of the meeting of this Day??
Again, we can notice that the unfortunate chickens were never sent chicken messengers...
Alas for them, there was but human messengers, sent to human people (both leaders and commoners).Peace
-
Peace Ahmed,
Good morning bro
Please note I have created another thread to discuss the issue of the creation of man (with or without Adam)
Sure I will have a look
This is a good remark, this will give me the opportunity to show that there are something very special with the jinns.
In , God said he has created the ins and the jinn only to serve him.
Why did God forget the chickens ?Thanks bro, it was a bit of a funny comment as I needed to laugh to counter the frustration, now it seems to me that you totally misunderstood Allah when He said that ?He created the Jinns and Ins but to worship Him? 5156
Bro please understand this simple fact, these two races were only mentioned because they are the only two races that have bloody freewill and consequently they will be the only two races that must give account and consequently they are the only two races that will be held accountable
How come you missed that bro?
Now the chickens are doing exactly what Allah forced them to do which is being eaten by us, do you love chickens by the way bro?
Also the earth is doing exactly what Allah forced it to do, no wonder you read a verse like this in the Quran
And He has made subservient to you whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth, all, from Himself; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect.
(13)
-> See, everything in the heaven and earth else but the Jinns and Ins is ?Musakhar to us?, i.e. everything other than the Ins and Jinns truly worship Allah, unlike the Ins and Jinns
Now Allah told us that He is the Rub of Easts and Wests, would the easts and wests be a class of humans?
Allah also told us the He is the ?Rub of Al Sharra?, which is a star as far as I know but for you would Al Sharaa be a class of humans?
And that He is the Lord of the Sirius;(49)
Well, the response in this verse
And We have committed to Hell many Jinn and humans; they had hearts with which they did not comprehend, and they had eyes with which they did not see, and they had ears with which they did not hear. They are like cattle; no, they are even more astray. These are the unaware ones.
In this verse, we learn again that many of the jinn and the ins will go to hell. Again, God forgot to tell us about the fate of the chickens !
Haha bro
Why Allah punish the chicken when he gave them no freewill? A good question for you mate
Why ?
Simply because only the ins and the jinn have the possibility of rejecting God?s message. Only these 2 kind of beings can do that, simply because they are both humans, endowed with free will.Haha again, you just answered yourself, do you mean because only the ins and jinn have freewill and will be held accountable?
Now to say that then both are humans is very laughable bro, did Allah said that in the Quran that both are humans, Or you are making this up?, why Allah always differentiated between the Ins and Jinns?
Now you have not answered an important question, how Allah created the leaders before the ordinary humans?
And if We had wished, We could have given every soul its guidance, but the word from Me has taken effect, that I will fill Hell with Jinn and humans all together.
This verse confirms it the jinn and ins both have a soul, to which guidance can be sent. The chicken are never said to have a soul.
So what if both have a soul, this does not make them the same, how silly is this argument bro, well the chicken also has a soul would that make it a human?
How about Allah bro, does He have a soul?
?O you tribes of Jinn and humans, did not messengers come to you from amongst you and relate to you My revelations, and warn you of the meeting of this Day??
Again, we can notice that the unfortunate chickens were never sent chicken messengers...
Why Allah sends a checken messenger to them while they have no freewill?
Do you know what the job of a messenger is exactly?, if you know then I?m sure you will conclude that the chicken race does not need chicken messengers
Alas for them, there was but human messengers, sent to human people (both leaders and commoners).
Peace
Sorry?
Salam
-
Peace JM, all
To expose the link between "the sun, efficient farming and the leaders of chiefdoms", we should recall that in the ancient times, the simplest way to know seasons was the position of the sun rise across the year. Indeed, leaders had acquired this knowledge from some intuiters (commonly known as "prophets", and were aware of the cyclic aspect of nature's phenomena.
When you have a tool to know when the season of rain would start, you know when you have to plant the seeds. Thus tunning each operation of farming with each corresponding season, and increasing the efficiency.
The corrupt leaders used this knowledge to dupe the commeners, to make them believe that they had some sort of power over the force of nature, they could predict the rain, the harvest time... The commoners were amazed by this faculty and thus gave their leaders a status of demi gods.
And then a religion was built around the sun, the prime tool of calendar, and the leaders, who would ask any favors from the commoners.
--
-
In , God said he has created the ins and the jinn only to serve him.
Why did God forget the chickens ?Bro please understand this simple fact, these two races were only mentioned because they are the only two races that have bloody freewill and consequently they will be the only two races that must give account and consequently they are the only two races that will be held accountable
Peace
We can agree on that, except on the term ?race?. You think the jinn and the ins are 2 races, when I think there are 2 classes of people.
And He has made subservient to you whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth, all, from Himself; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect.
-> See, everything in the heaven and earth else but the Jinns and Ins is ?Musakhar to us?, i.e. everything other than the Ins and Jinns truly worship Allah, unlike the Ins and Jinns
Yes, so, the ins as well as the jinn are included in the expression ?people who think? of this verse.
?O you tribes of Jinn and humans, did not messengers come to you from amongst you and relate to you My revelations, and warn you of the meeting of this Day??
Alas for them, there was but human messengers, sent to human people (both leaders and commoners).
Sorry?
Salam
My point is that there is no jinn (in the sense of hidden being) messenger mentioned in the Quran, while in this verse, it is said that there are messengers among ins and jinn.
Please also note that the term mashar is very badly translated by the word ?tribe?. A mashar is a community whose affair is one and the same. This implies that the jinn and the ins used to live in a single community.
See the explanation of this verse here http//www.muslim.org/english-quran/ch006-e.pdf
Peace
PS Please be as succinct and straight to the point as possible, so that I have time to reply to all your refutations.
-
Peace
We can agree on that, except on the term race. You think the jinn and the ins are 2 races, when I think there are 2 classes of people.
Well I agree on that except the term 2 classes of people, because Allah is not going to play hide and seek with us and I mean by seek is seeking the truth, so Allah is not going to hide this truth on us, He clearly specified that the Ins are different to the Jinn except in the subject of worshipping Allah by choice, now it is really silly and dumb to just use the only similarity between the two to conclude that the two are from the same race while ALLAH WAS CLEAR THAT THEY ARE TWO DIGFERNT RACES, He always referred to them as two entities as well other things that those Jinn can do while humans can?t , in addition that they can see us and we can?t see them, how the hell you conclude that the two are the same?, this is ridiculous bro
Yes, so, the ins as well as the jinn are included in the expression people who think of this verse.
I don?t really get what you mean by the above
My point is that there is no jinn (in the sense of hidden being) messenger mentioned in the Quran,
I agree the Jinn are hidden ?The quran clearly told us that about them, what?s new info you have added exactly by calling them hidden?
while in this verse, it is said that there are messengers among ins and jinn.
Ok but what that has to do with the Jinn being the same as Ins?, the verse clearly differentiate between the Ins and Jinn so it contradicts you more than it supports you, how about all the verses that I posted or you are going to turn a blind eye on?m?
Please also note that the term mashar is very badly translated by the word tribe. A mashar is a community whose affair is one and the same.
That is right both have free will and Allah must send messengers to both from them, i.e. the verse indicates that Allah sent jinn messengers to the Jinns Mashar
You are just running around trying to find any logic even if flawed to somehow manipulate it to support you non sensible claim
This implies that the jinn and the ins used to live in a single community.
Haha, this implies that you made this up and surely confirms my last senstence that you manipulate it regardless of logic to support you non sensibvle claim
Does the verse say they lived in the same community? NO, And even if it did, did the Quran tell us that some of the Ins will be able to communicate with the Jinns,?, it did,, now isn?t both are living on the same bloody earth?, yes, so what is your point exactly?
See the explanation of this verse here http//www.muslim.org/english-quran/ch006-e.pdf
Peace
Thank you bro, but I do understand it in ikts original language, I will be stupid if I read some silly and non sensible English comments by some Rockies while I?m a native and experienced Arabic speaker
PS Please be as succinct and straight to the point as possible, so that I have time to reply to all your refutations.
well, I hope you do reply to the verses I posted so far and replace the Jinn with the hidden and see if it makes sense to a child
now let me ask you, hidden is an adjective, i.e. it needs something to describe as hidden
hidden alone is stupid, non sensible and does not make sense, do you agree?
Well
I can say a hidden secret, a hidden man, a hidden pen, but what the hell is hidden only?
Can I ask you what is exactly that is hidden
Please don?t tell me that you don?t know because it is hidden, haha
Cheers
-
Please also note that the term mashar is very badly translated by the word ?tribe?. A mashar is a community whose affair is one and the same.
That is right both have free will and Allah must send messengers to both from them, i.e. the verse indicates that Allah sent jinn messengers to the Jinns Mashar
You are just running around trying to find any logic even if flawed to somehow manipulate it to support you non sensible claim
Peace Ahmed,
Please don?t rush in reading and in replying to me. Fond the second time, you have completely missed my point.
And please take some time to read the links I give you. This will help you understand my stance, and will save your time and mine.Well, my point is perfectly explained here
http//www.muslim.org/english-quran/ch006-e.pdfPlease have a look at the comment 130a.
Looking forward to your comments
Peace
-
Now it?s getting serious for those Muslims
12- And to Solomon (We made) the Wind (obedient) Its early morning (stride) was a month's (journey), and its evening (stride) was a month's (journey); and We made a Font of molten brass to flow for him; and there were Jinns that worked in front of him, by the leave of his Lord, and if any of them turned aside from our command, We made him taste of the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.
13- They worked for him as he desired, (making) arches, images, basons as large as reservoirs, and (cooking) cauldrons fixed (in their places) "Work ye, sons of David, with thanks! but few of My servants are grateful!"
14- Then, when We decreed (Solomon's) death, nothing showed them his death except a little worm of the earth, which kept (slowly) gnawing away at his staff so when he fell down, the Jinns saw plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in the humiliating Penalty (of their Task).
-> So Allah has forced the human leaders ?The Jinns? to work for another human leader ?Solomon?, I suppose to be another Jinn ?wasn?t he a human leader??
Yes, and I see no problem with that.
See my earlier post
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4435.msg93519#msg93519-> Now this is funny why the humans leaders are professional in (making) arches, images, basons as large as reservoirs, and (cooking) cauldrons fixed (in their places), I thought most of them sits on their backs doing nothing but ripping off their people?
Maybe these jinn were the chiefs of the ordinary people who did that.
Anyway, what would be really funny is to imagine all this work done by invisible beings.
-> Finally, why Allah flags the human leaders that they can?t know the unseen? , the Jinns saw plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in the humiliating Penalty (of their Task)., yet I wonder why Allah was humiliating the human leaders for the sake of another human leader
I don?t understand what the problem is.
Anyway, assuming the jinn are invisible beings, does the statement that they can?t know the unseen really make sense?
Peace
-
Here is another problem for them
39- Said an 'Ifrit, of the Jinns "I will bring it to thee before thou rise from thy council indeed I have full strength for the purpose, and may be trusted."
40- Said one who had knowledge of the Book "I will bring it to thee within the twinkling of an eye!" Then when (Solomon) saw it placed firmly before him, he said "This is by the Grace of my Lord!- to test me whether I am grateful or ungrateful! and if any is grateful, truly his gratitude is (a gain) for his own soul; but if any is ungrateful, truly my Lord is Free of all Needs, Supreme in Honour !"
(39)
(40)-> We read in 2739 ?Ifrit of the Jinns?, now the advocates of new illogical understanding need to explain to us what is ?Ifrit of the Jinn?? is it a title of the Human Leaders?, if they somehow mange to solve that, then they will be cornered with this one, why that Ifrit of the human leaders can bring the Queen of Sheba throne in a matter of seconds from miles away? ? Said an 'Ifrit, of the Jinns "I will bring it to thee before thou rise from thy council indeed I have full strength for the purpose, and may be trusted.?
-> And just to make it harder for those advocates, let me ask them this question whom verse 2740 is talking about?, is it another Ifrit of the human leader who will bring the throne in shorter time than the first Ifrit of the human leaders? If No, then whom is it? and regardless if No or Yes how that entity will being the throne ion shorter time than the first Ifrit of the Jinns ? Said one who had knowledge of the Book "I will bring it to thee within the twinkling of an eye!", , don?t ever dare anyone and say this is a metaphor, because the throne was brought for real ?Then when (Solomon) saw it placed firmly before him, , he said "This is by the Grace of my Lord!- to test me whether I am grateful or ungrateful! and if any is grateful, truly his gratitude is (a gain) for his own soul; but if any is ungrateful, truly my Lord is Free of all Needs, Supreme in Honour !?
Peace Ahmed,
The possible meanings of ifrit are
- one strong and powerful
- sharp, vigourous and effective in an affair
The possible meanings of tarf are
- a glance a noble man
- a government revenue
- an envoy from yemen
The ususal translation of tarf in is ?glance?, but, in this context, ?envoy from Yemen? seems far better.
In , Salomon asks his commanders to bring the throne.
In , a strong and powerful (ifrit) commander (jinn) says he can bring it before he strikes his camp.
In , another commander says he can bring it before the envoy from Yemen (tarf) returns to Salomon (we know from the preceding verses that an envoy had been sent to the queen Sheba, who lived in Yemen).See http//www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1975®ion=E1&CR=
http//www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1976®ion=E1(Please check out these links before asking me any question, so as to make yourself sure you have comprehended my interpretation).
In the verse , translating jinn by invisible beings would make absolutely no sense. Why would an invisible being respond to a request made to the commanders?
Peace
-
Jinn according to M. Ali
See http//aaiil.org/text/books/mali/religionislam/angels/angels.djvu
Pages 142 to 151
And especially pages 144 to 147 for the chapter "The word Jinn as applied to men" very, very interesting...To download the djvu plug-in http//www.lizardtech.com/download/dl_options.php?page=plugins
Dear /JM/
Thank you for this link. It is indeed a good discussion especially the pages you mention. Fantastic in fact.
I'm more convinced than ever of the fact that 'jinn' is a description of humans and human nature and accepting that the jinn are anything but that is illogical.
Unfortunately the discussion in another thread has diverged due to 'bombing' of the thread with material unrelated to the topic; but your ideas and source materials have been very good reading.
Peace.
-
Jinn according to M. Ali
See http//aaiil.org/text/books/mali/religionislam/angels/angels.djvu
Pages 142 to 151
And especially pages 144 to 147 for the chapter "The word Jinn as applied to men" very, very interesting...To download the djvu plug-in http//www.lizardtech.com/download/dl_options.php?page=plugins
Dear /JM/
Thank you for this link. It is indeed a good discussion especially the pages you mention. Fantastic in fact.
I'm more convinced than ever of the fact that 'jinn' is a description of humans and human nature and accepting that the jinn are anything but that is illogical.
Unfortunately the discussion in another thread has diverged due to 'bombing' of the thread with material unrelated to the topic; but your ideas and source materials have been very good reading.
Peace.
I am glad this thread has been appreciated by at least one person.
I you find a verse which seems hard to explain with the ?jinn=chiefs? paradigm, feel free to bring it.
Peace
-
Peace
If we consider Jinns as leaders, is the word jinn referring to a title
or is it referring to a clan/group ?
I mean, will someone be always a jinn once they are a jinn/leader
Or their position can vary between jinn and man.Also, I still can not figure out the connection between ?created by fire?
and leaders? -
Peace
If we consider Jinns as leaders, is the word jinn referring to a title
or is it referring to a clan/group ?
I mean, will someone be always a jinn once they are a jinn/leader
Or their position can vary between jinn and man.Also, I still can not figure out the connection between ?created by fire?
and leaders?The created from "fire" (immaterial) in 1527 is a reference to "jinn" as being "human nature" prior to the creation of flesh from "clay" (material).
Peace.
-
My point is that there is no jinn (in the sense of hidden being) messenger mentioned in the Quran, while in this verse, it is said that there are messengers among ins and jinn.
Peace,
Furthermore it should be obvious from chapter 72 that "jinn" are listening to the reading from a human messenger!
A clear sign that they are one and the same being.
-
in 1527 is a reference to "jinn" as being "human nature" prior to the creation of flesh from "clay" (material).
What you said above is total manipilation and I will consider it a Lie unless you back it off, now don't bring new materials, here is 1526-27 and again the humans were diffrentiated from the Jinn, Itqi Allah Oben
(26)
(27)
-
do you realize what you just said?
LOL