Research on the Arabic meanings of Jinn and the Quranic contexts
-
-
Salam Arnold,
EXCELLENT article! While I have some differences of opinion on some of the points you made, at this point I can completely agree with your understanding of the word "jinn"
Quoted from the conclusion of your article you said
"I believe, I have proven that the word jinn, doesn?t has a fixed meaning, as it is depended on the context of the verses."
Absolutely! I also agree that Shaitan and Malikah are not proper nouns (names of people).
In the opening of your article you wrote
"One of the biggest problems today with interpretation of the Quran, is the concept of leaving words untranslated. The idea that some words are titles, fixed meanings, can create confusing and contradicting subjects. Also it has taken away many important messages which Allah through the Quran tries to teach us."
Very well written!
While there are some minor points that I have come to different conclusions on, I am excited to see someone examining the classical arabic in such an open minded and scientific way. I look forward to reading more of what you come up with.
Salam and Thank you,
Arnab -
arnold yasin wrote
Here is my result after a long research on the word Jinn as given in the Quran and the Arabic languagehttp//19.org/index.php?id=91,417,0,0,1,0
ur hypothesis (quite like another 1 i remember reading here) has many assumptions, and grows on these! -)
much of the reference is extra-quranic...and does not seem to contribute to an understanding in the light of quran...rather in a light of other than quran's! -)
peace! -)
-
Hi thegod,
I guess people will believe what they continute to choose to believe... there has been enough discussion on the Djin... I completely agree with Arnold and have come to the same conclusion with independent analysis.
If you choose to believe in folklore, that's your choice. -
maxq wrote
Hi thegod,hi maxq! -)
I guess people will believe what they continute to choose to believe...
yeah..i think so too! -)
there has been enough discussion on the Djin...
if that's what u feel! -)
I completely agree with Arnold and have come to the same conclusion with independent analysis.
cool...perhaps u read the same books! -)
If you choose to believe in folklore, that's your choice.
if i do! -)
...by ur own criteron and going by what u believe in at the moment...u do...ur "independently analysed" belief has been around for a long time!
..but like u said...its ur choice! -)
-
ur hypothesis (quite like another 1 i remember reading here) has many assumptions, and grows on these! -)
much of the reference is extra-quranic...and does not seem to contribute to an understanding in the light of quran...rather in a light of other than quran's! -)
peace! -)
Peace,
dear not-thegod, the word jinn is a description of an attribute, this can be shared by many things. It is not a title of a species. So i have researched what the attribute describes according to the context of the verses.
If you draw a different conclusion that the description is a title, then please do so. But as long as you can't go into the subject with more depth, all of your feedback is unfounded.
Peace...
-
hi maxq! -)
Hey man, if you can change your name ID, that would be great... it is really disturbing to address you the way your current ID is. Please do not mind...
cool...perhaps u read the same books! -)
or not...
if i do! -)
and how can you prove the "if"?
...by ur own criteron and going by what u believe in at the moment...u do...ur "independently analysed" belief has been around for a long time!
agreed, but one is commanded not to believe in whatever is said by someone else... one must verify him/herself, independently. Refer to 1736!..but like u said...its ur choice! -)
and yours
-
arnod yasin wrote
dear not-thegod,-S ...yes dear bro... -)
the word jinn is a description of an attribute, this can be shared by many things. It is not a title of a species.
...that it cannot be used as a "title" to denote a "species"...a la "insan"... is what u will establish...right?
So i have researched what the attribute describes according to the context of the verses.
cool! -)
If you draw a different conclusion that the description is a title, then please do so.
that exactly is the point...to draw a conclusion...but even before u establish ur claim.....u make the assumption that it is correct! -)
below i quote from ur article
One of the biggest problems today with interpretation of the Quran, is the concept of leaving words untranslated. The idea that some words are titles, fixed meanings, can create confusing and contradicting subjects. Also it has taken away many important messages which Allah through the Quran tries to teach us. So what Ill try to show in this book, is that the Quran contains no titles, except for a few names of persons and places. Thus approaching words in the Quran, not as titles, but as words with meanings itself relevant through the contexts of the verses. Making it subjective to the context, and not one-given meaning as would be, by approaching it as titles. Leaving the words not untranslated, or a filled in meaning from history, but translating them exactly to what they mean in the Arabic. This can give surprising and exciting results.
there...u already conclude...and u have hardly started...that
it has taken away many important messages which Allah through the Quran tries to teach us.
ok..let's say it's kinda foreword or something...and that u will prove ur point ahead....let's read further
So what Ill try to show in this book, is that the Quran contains no titles, except for a few names of persons and places.
yes...u say u will try to show...but i dont see where u show this...u simply start applying ur assumption!
below is an illustration
The verses where Iblis and shaitan are used, are almost all directly linked to humans creation, and thus coincides with something within humans itself, that was created first/before/ thought up.
"..and thus coincides with something within humans itself, that was created first/before/ thought up."
how did u conclude that?
But as long as you can't go into the subject with more depth, all of your feedback is unfounded.
looking forward to hearing from u! -)
speaking of unfounded stuff...if i remember correctly...u had once copy-pasted an article on jesus's death...and claimed that it (the article) was irrefutable!
...the article claimed that "wafat" in the context of quran means death and (that) taking away the soul is nothing but death....
...i had pointed this out but u didnt respond...guess u missed it...or maybe i missed it...anyhow...would be nice to get ur response to that too!
not a discussion...just whether u agree with that article's claim! -)
peace! peace! -)
-
maxq wrote
Hey man, if you can change your name ID, that would be great...i dont aim to stay around that long...in the meanwhile i can offer atleast 3 possible solutions
...think of thegod as a single nonsensical word...no meaning at all...(i think i read somewhere that if a word has a meaning it cannot be a "name/proper noun"....thats 1 (solution)! -)
it is really disturbing to address you the way your current ID is.
-( ...but u dont need to addess me this way (if the 1st solution fails)
...use tg instead of thegod! that's second! -)
third not-thegod...yeah...a bit lenghty! -)
Please do not mind...
not at all bro! -)
or not...
yeah...perhaps not! -)
and how can you prove the "if"?
?
agreed, but one is commanded not to believe in whatever is said by someone else...
do u know my beliefs? or on what i have based my beliefs? -)
...where did the folklore fly in from? -)
one must verify him/herself, independently. Refer to 1736!
1736...hmmm...yeah...i remember...but that will be another tale in itself! -S
okay..not a snub or something...but now that u have talked about verification...when u quote a historian or a lexicologist...do u verify the information s/he provides?
and yours
yeah bro! -)
-
i remember somebody once said djinns are ur fantasies...and i remarked that he should note that he said "ur fantasies"...but u dont say "ur djinns"!
...a similar propostion
v have read in the quran "zannakum", "hawahu", "nafsaka"...
...show me an instance of djinnahu..djinnakum..or like! -)
-
v have read in the quran "zannakum", "hawahu", "nafsaka"...
...show me an instance of djinnahu..djinnakum..or like! -)
yes precisely, Djin refers not to just a part of our conscious, but rather an attribute of being concealed... from that perspective, if there is extraterristrial life in the universe, whose existance is hidden from us, can also be considered "Djin". And they need not be made of energy... nafs is not the same kind of attribute bro.
-
peace
what about
3837 And the devils, building and diving.
YUSUFALI As also the evil ones, (including) every kind of builder and diver,-
PICKTHAL And the unruly, every builder and diver (made We subservient),
SHAKIR And the shaitans, every builder and diver,it implies here that devils (evil ones or unruly or shaitans) worked for solomon, so are these things mentined humans who let their desperate side take over or beings made of actual fire?
can anyone please tell me who are the ones in control.
and where is our good side? if the desperate side refused to serve, who did serve? the ones in control, who are they?
are they our good side or are they beings made of actual light? -
Salam nerspi,
That depends how you translate the words... Shayaateen does not necessarily mean supernatural devilish beings, but rather those who are unruley and defiant, including men themselves - refer to the last three verses of chapter 114. And winds made subserviant does not mean David was given supernatural powers. Mankind has harnessed the power of wind and water in the last two centuries... foremost example is electric power. These verses mean that Soloman may have been the first king in this region to realize the use of science and reason as a means of progress in Southern Arabia (not unlike Kurosh/Cyrus, which makes for an interesting parallel.)
Now let us look at the translation
3835 Solomon prayed, "O My Lord! Absolve my imperfections and bestow upon me the gift an unprecedented (leadership of a) kingdom. Verily, You are the Giver of Gifts.?
3836 So We gave him the knowledge (which you, mankind, will eventually call science,) of making the wind serve him It took (his ships) where (he) intended.
3837 And (for building and driving his ships, We) made subservient to him (even) the ravenous/defiant (men) ? every kind of builder and navigator.
Regards,
Max -
maxq wrote
yes precisely, Djin refers not to just a part of our conscious,whether it (djinn) refers to a part of our conscious is what v are discussing! -)
but rather an attribute of being concealed...from that perspective, if there is extraterristrial life in the universe, whose existance is hidden from us, can also be considered "Djin".
v are trying to determine whether the quran rules out usage of the word "djinn" to denote a certain creation...the way it uses the word "insan" to denote another creation! -)
And they need not be made of energy...
?
nafs is not the same kind of attribute bro.
nafs...zanna...hawa...all of these are related to humans...
and have been used in a way that denotes that they belong to/are part of humans
...nafsaka
...hawahu
...zannakum
...bagyihimbut v find no such usage of the word "djinn"! -)
all there is, is an assumption that "djinn" in some verses means "part of our conscious"! -)
and yeah bro...what about the verification thing? -)
-
nerspi wrote
what about
3837 And the devils, building and diving.
YUSUFALI As also the evil ones, (including) every kind of builder and diver,-
PICKTHAL And the unruly, every builder and diver (made We subservient),
SHAKIR And the shaitans, every builder and diver,it implies here that devils (evil ones or unruly or shaitans) worked for solomon, so are these things mentined humans who let their desperate side take over or beings made of actual fire?
can anyone please tell me who are the ones in control.
and where is our good side? if the desperate side refused to serve, who did serve? the ones in control, who are they?
are they our good side or are they beings made of actual light?the word "shaytan" is used for both humans and djinns...solomon's armies also consisted of djinns, and i feel these djinns were the shayatin from amongst them! -)
peace! -)
-
maxq wrote
you're going on a tanjent ntgif u can provide anything from quran...feel free to do so! -)
Like I said... you're free to choose to believe in fairytales. Goodbye!
i will take that as ur inability to substantiate ur assumptions...
but i appreciate that u attempted to do so! -)
and yes...the verification part still remains...do u verify when u quote somebody...as per ur understanding of 1736? -)