An ant knows name of a person? A bird knows name of a city?
-
Peace,
Like i said, it refers to being sometimes, and sometimes to non-beings. Plus the sujood is mostly used as to obey, and not literal falling on the ground. But in my artciel i can explain more.
-
ik75243 wrote
that 'the jinn' thing is symbolic doesn't make sense to me.u are perhaps aware of the traditional (shia/sunni) view!
apart from theirs, is the view of the ahmdaiyyas mirza ahmad, the founder of ahmadiyya beliefs, had claimed to be a messenger receiving revelations from god! he perhaps realised that people would ask miracles of him, so he set about re-interpreting the miracles mentioned in the quran, claiming the quran's description as being figurative (as in the case of christ), or explaining them as natural events (as in parting of the sea by moses)! checking the commentary against the text of quran, the distortion can be verified easily! -) 1 of his problems was djinns and tayr, as according to the quran, they were part of the army of solomon! so had anybody demanded of him a thing similar to solomon's armies, he would have been in a fix in view of the prevalent understanding of the verse! so what he did instead, was a re-interpretation of solomon's armies! thus, djinns of the army were wild tribes and tayr were cavalry! also, the commentary claims that the word has different meanings at different places!
another view is that of djinns being negative thoughts this had been explained to me by some hindus...according to them the entire quran is symbolic as well...they draw a comparison to the hindu epic called "ramayana"! "ram" is an archetype who represents the person on a journey or a person marching towards something! thus "ramayana" ram + ayana, journey/march of ram! similarly, according to them, "muhammad" is a model which has to be realised! as for the djinns being negative thoughts, they perhaps see it as a comparison to the "asuras" (demons)....the symbolic explanation of the churning of the oceans will help explain their understanding of djinns as negative emotions! prior to this forum, i had not heard this view expressed by anybody other than a minority from hindus!
these are the views i already knew (before visiting this forum)
but there is 1 understanding i dont remember having read anywhere before here that of djinns being reptiles! interestingly, there have been many legends around reptiles such as snakes and lizards! infact, according to the traditional view, djinns are believed to take the form of snakes! -S i believe this article is somewhere in the articles section, so u can check it out there! -)
so read the quran try to find ur own meaning, or choose from the above 4, or more if u are aware of! -)
as for myself, based on 5514-15, 1526-27, and 712, unless the description of creation of 'insaan' is figurative, there is no reason to believe the description of the creation of djinns is figurative! -)
-
Peace,
There were already people claiming the same as i told you already. You keep pointing out ahmedya's, but these only agree on it, but were not the people who formed the ideas on djinn and tair. There were already people in India saying this. This ideas are common knowledge on the indian and pakistani lands. Scholars as Saiyyad Sulaiman Nadvi, Dar al-Musannifin and Azamgarh aldo pointed these things out. Also Ibn Kathir mentiones that the Naml in sura 27 are a tribe and not real ants. These scholars lived hundreds of years before ahmedya, so refering to only ahmedya is ignorant. Parwez, Ahmed Ali, Muhammed Asad and Dr.Shabbir all agree on the same issue. All of these translators condemn Ahmedya's.
And jinn means beings/things not seen/are hidden/concealed. And is a description were a lot of things can fall under. Just a lot of things are seen beings/things, not just humans or one species. So there is more to it then the view based on tradition.
-
Peace Arnold Yasin
Let me add few lines here which are related to two documentries.
Winged Migration - The birds fly as far as 25,000 miles in search of food. These birds remember their path based on their memory. This is what the film maker understanding.
The March of Penguins - They are look alike and these birds recognize their partners with their voices. These birds must have somekind of language which they are communicating to each other which to us sounds like meaningless screams.
-
The bird hopoe can not fly over long distances..............
-
I thought you posted those things about birds because of the hopoe flying to the country of Sheba. If not, then please explain what you meant with these.
Plus i have sended my article to your mail.
-
There are people on this forum who are looking to verify the verses of Qur'an must watch these two documentaries. This will make you realise how true are the words of Allah (SWT).
638 There is not an animal (that lives) on the earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but (forms part of) communities like you. Nothing have we omitted from the Book, and they (all) shall be gathered to their Lord in the end.
These birds have a very strong community ties with their own rules and regulations. They operate in a very systematic way. Travel as far as 25000 miles with a complete dicipline with older take the lead to guide the new born who are travelling for the first time. They have voices so they must have some kind of language to understand each other. Penguins even sellect their partners for one season and stick with them in that harsh and cold weather.
The honey bees are another good example of this verse. Signs of Allah (SWT) are everywhere so instead of wasting ones intelligence and energy on Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) messangership concentrate on simple signs all around you.
-
I read somewhere that 60% at least is language, and not just singing or making noise. The sounds really have complicated meanings some experts say that can be compared with human language almost...
-
I have read a lot on people getting brain hemirages and how they had to learn and understand language again all over. Sometimes these people could hear us speaking, but because they lost the meaning of the words, it didn't sound as language, but they described it as 'it was like people were talking as animals, i only heard sounds, it didn't even hear it as somebody was speaking a foreign language that i didn't understood. Their words were just loose sounds to me like animal sounds. It was so weird as i tried to grasp the words, but my brain only heard 'sounds' not 'words'. I could think, but not in words, only in 'knowing' things.'
Because of this, neurologists believe this is the reason we don't understand animals, are our brain never had the software to understand animals. As the person above lost his software to understand human language. This gave an interresting thought, not that we can understand animals, but that animal language can be as meaning full and diverse as human language and is highly underestimated.
As for the trust KGB, trust first can only be given before it can be earned.....
Peace
-
ik75243 wrote
that 'the jinn' thing is symbolic doesn't make sense to me.u are perhaps aware of the traditional (shia/sunni) view!
apart from theirs, is the view of the ahmdaiyyas mirza ahmad, the founder of ahmadiyya beliefs, had claimed to be a messenger receiving revelations from god! he perhaps realised that people would ask miracles of him, so he set about re-interpreting the miracles mentioned in the quran, claiming the quran's description as being figurative (as in the case of christ), or explaining them as natural events (as in parting of the sea by moses)! checking the commentary against the text of quran, the distortion can be verified easily! -) 1 of his problems was djinns and tayr, as according to the quran, they were part of the army of solomon! so had anybody demanded of him a thing similar to solomon's armies, he would have been in a fix in view of the prevalent understanding of the verse! so what he did instead, was a re-interpretation of solomon's armies! thus, djinns of the army were wild tribes and tayr were cavalry! also, the commentary claims that the word has different meanings at different places!
another view is that of djinns being negative thoughts this had been explained to me by some hindus...according to them the entire quran is symbolic as well...they draw a comparison to the hindu epic called "ramayana"! "ram" is an archetype who represents the person on a journey or a person marching towards something! thus "ramayana" ram + ayana, journey/march of ram! similarly, according to them, "muhammad" is a model which has to be realised! as for the djinns being negative thoughts, they perhaps see it as a comparison to the "asuras" (demons)....the symbolic explanation of the churning of the oceans will help explain their understanding of djinns as negative emotions! prior to this forum, i had not heard this view expressed by anybody other than a minority from hindus!
these are the views i already knew (before visiting this forum)
but there is 1 understanding i dont remember having read anywhere before here that of djinns being reptiles! interestingly, there have been many legends around reptiles such as snakes and lizards! infact, according to the traditional view, djinns are believed to take the form of snakes! -S i believe this article is somewhere in the articles section, so u can check it out there! -)
so read the quran try to find ur own meaning, or choose from the above 4, or more if u are aware of! -)
as for myself, based on 5514-15, 1526-27, and 712, unless the description of creation of 'insaan' is figurative, there is no reason to believe the description of the creation of djinns is figurative! -)
peace the God
so read the quran try to find ur own meaning, or choose from the above 4, or more if u are aware of! -)
thank you for the good advice
Yeah to me, in the Quranic sense djins are actual beings. And the whole 'allegory' thing can be used on any number of things. Shall we start an exercise of what's an allegory and what's not an allegory? How long till they make the Quran allegorical?( I understand there are some hindus who feel that way, as you said) To me the Quran is much simpler than this. God meant no hardship for us. And God only utters the truth another words no God wouldn't make it this complicated.
as for myself, based on 5514-15, 1526-27, and 712, unless the description of creation of 'insaan' is figurative, there is no reason to believe the description of the creation of djinns is figurative! -)
completely agree ! And a great point. Yeah shall we translate 'insaan' as well using it's root? What about abu lahab= father of fire. What's that an allegory of?
God bless !
-
imran k. wrote
How long till they make the Quran allegorical?as far as i know, it goes for the entire quran! adam, satan, heaven, hell, angels, djinns, kaaba, miracles, the ark of noah, the valley of naml, the valley of tuwa, the camel of shelah, the miraj, the fire in which abraham was cast, moses, christ, muhammad, gabriel, god....everything! -S
i
mran k. wrote
( I understand there are some hindus who feel that way, as you said)hmmm...to be honest "hindus" is a very broad term, and those whom i talked about are pantheists...i think it may have sounded like a generalisation, so i should perhaps clarify about that particular group they started by telling me that islam has been wrongly understood and that the quran needs to be read "correctly" to really understand it...they started off with showing problems with translations...soon started using the quran to preach their own faith, and very soon the entire quran had been attributed to human minds...they do not believe in the prophethood of muhammad and assert that quran is not word of god but that of a human, and that muhammad, if he existed, was simply an enlightened person! yet others informed me that there was no "muhammad" in history and that quran was only a fabrication by arabs! infact they were trying hard to show that terms such as "islam" and "muslims" can be applied to anybody, and that quran does not define or stipulate any set of beliefs (which is untrue)! but despite the fact that they believe quran to be of human origin, whereas the quran states it is from god, they still call themselves followers of quran, perhaps with the express purpose of preaching their own faith! -S
in other words, it is most likely that when u come across them, u are not likely to find them to be who they are disbelievers in quran; rather, they will pretend to believe in quran, and quite often will call themselves ex-sunnis, ex-shias, ex-christians or ex-jews! in the chat rooms they would openly criticise quran with 1 username, and subtly promote their beliefs with another, and "others" would applaud the "correct" interpretation with 1 they would raise objections to a particular concept, with another they would explain it allegorically/differently, and this allegorical/alternate explanation would then be applauded using other usernames...lolz! i guess the different usernames was so that they could test waters with some usernames and preach their beliefs with others! quite often they would talk with me using 1 username for 1 topic and another for other...then excuse themselves from the first and disappear from the other! also, they would vanish from an on-going discussion but continue with their lies in some other discussion(s)...-S this 1 girl said that the quran like ramayana was merely symbolic (note that perhaps most hindus hold the ramayana to be a true account and not a symbolic work), that "muhammad" is an archetype who never existed, and had promised to gift me a "quran" of her own!
so i didnt really mean 'some "hindus"' in a general sense...i know hindus who are very proud of their beliefs and do not need quran or the testaments to market it.....i was talking about a particular group which was perhaps more comfortable preaching symbolism and pantheism under the guise of being quran-alone peepz!
peace! -)
-
and yeah...i almost forgot....unlike peepz who call themselves quran-alone, they used to call themselves god-alone! dunno...but perhaps they believed that allowed them to call themselves followers of quran...but only as far as it was agreeable to them....whenever they did not find it agreeable, they would authorise themselves to supercede the quran or offer interpretations outta sync with the whole of quran! at the end their stance would be that they follow what their conscience/intellect deems proper, and that quran being a human composition could offer some guidance, but the actual message of god is the universe itself and this, and not quran, is the source of guidance! in other words they were self-appointed prophetesses of god, who would not believe by the quran except that which they themselves could verify or were agreeable to! so being god-alone, they do not need to believe by the whole of quran, which they do not deem to be from god! ofcourse, as pantheists they see everything as god, including themselves, so lesser for them any reason to afford reverence to the book! -)
-
and yeah...i almost forgot....unlike peepz who call themselves quran-alone, they used to call themselves god-alone! dunno...but perhaps they believed that allowed them to call themselves followers of quran...but only as far as it was agreeable to them....whenever they did not find it agreeable, they would authorise themselves to supercede the quran or offer interpretations outta sync with the quran! at the end their stance would be that they follow what their conscience/intellect deems proper, and that quran being a human composition could offer some guidance, but the actual message of god is the universe itself and this, and not quran, is the source of guidance! in other words they were self-appointed prophetesses of god, who would not believe by the quran except that which they themselves could verify or were agreeable to! so being god-alone, they do not need to believe by the whole of quran, which they do not deem to be from god! -)
certainly fits me!
your conclusion is concrete!
God Bless all.