we were all alive previously

Alen

Salam.

Is it possible to get those memories?
I mean, if a shrink can hypnotyse you and say go back when you were a child, 7 years old and tell me this and that and describe whatever, is it possible to tell such a person, hey, go back to the year 0 or go back really far and tell me stuff?

Would such "travelling" be called time travelling since you'r enot really leaving the space?
Would it be possible to get information from The Other Side, maybe that place where Adam and his wife used to live prior to deportation?

Peace.

progod

Peace,

Yosemite, don't worry about that translation of mz. It is a mistranslation that is not based on sound Arabic knowledge and in which he insists. (sorry mz, I'm not trying to insult you but that is the way I see it and so I'm calling it like that.).

Samia, I have to disagree (only) about the part about us not being alive before. I think there are definite clues in the Quran that point to Adam=Humanity, and that we are here to make up the mistake we made in our previous life, which means that we are here to see God as our only god and to serve him and make no equals with him. There is also good reason to see shajaratun as 'bad company' literally 'disputers', those who turned aside, or even possibly 'matter of controversy' (based of the form fa&alatun) instead of tree here. The first two being based off of a possible plural of shaajir, like kaafir and kafaratun, saafir safaratun (scribes) and saahir saharatun (magicians, beguilers). All of which are seen in the Quran.

Godbless,
Anwar

mz

Salaams Anwar,

I'm not trying to insult

likewise.

It is a mistranslation that is not based on sound Arabic knowledge and in which he insists.

Sound Arabic Knowledge so that is what you are basing your understandings on,is it?

Men changed to monkies and or pigs- physically ......sorry not many people here believe such lies, thus your sound Arabic knowledge.

God Bless Anwar,All.

Samia

Peace,

Yosemite, don't worry about that translation of mz. It is a mistranslation that is not based on sound Arabic knowledge and in which he insists. (sorry mz, I'm not trying to insult you but that is the way I see it and so I'm calling it like that.).

Samia, I have to disagree (only) about the part about us not being alive before. I think there are definite clues in the Quran that point to Adam=Humanity, and that we are here to make up the mistake we made in our previous life, which means that we are here to see God as our only god and to serve him and make no equals with him. There is also good reason to see shajaratun as 'bad company' literally 'disputers', those who turned aside, or even possibly 'matter of controversy' (based of the form fa&alatun) instead of tree here. The first two being based off of a possible plural of shaajir, like kaafir and kafaratun, saafir safaratun (scribes) and saahir saharatun (magicians, beguilers). All of which are seen in the Quran.

Godbless,
Anwar

And what does "shaajir" mean?
Adam (we) made a mistake, (we) repented and God forgave (us)...so, what are we paying for?

And lastly, what does this have to do with us having lived before?

progod

Peace,

Mz,

You should know the roles of mansoob before you make a judgement like that. Do you think God made the earth a bed or 'AS A BED' ?

So, he made those people 'AS apes and pigs' this idea of transformation is an interpretation and is not dictated by sound Arabic grammar?

This is a bias of yours. Study the Quran more, read it in Arabic more and pay attention to the case endings and what they mean.

Saamia,

It is related to mutashaajir, it means 'a disputer.' It is not this in particular that refers to us living a previous life, but the Old Arabic meaning of Adam as well as 711. (We created all of you, shaped you and then said to the angels pay homage to Adam&#039 wa laqad khalaqnaakum thumma sawwarnaakum thumma qulnaa lil-malaa'ikati-sjudoo li'aadama fasajadoo' As well as when Adam was kicked out of Paradise 238 (Ahbitoo minhaa jamee&an). The Quran always observes dual, and only doesn't when speaking of two groups for which it will use dual or plural interchangeably.

Godbless,
Anwar

mz

Hi Anwar,

Here is what one grammar expert said here -

Say ?Shall I inform you of worse than this as a punishment from God? Those whom God cursed and became angry at them, and He made from them apes and pigs and servants of evil. Those have a worst place and are more astray from the right path.?

Qul hal onabbi-okum bisharrin min thalikamathoobatan AAinda Allahi man laAAanahu Allahuwaghadiba AAalayhi wajaAAala minhumu alqiradata wa alkhanazeer awaAAabada alttaghooti ola-ika sharrun makananwaadallu AAan sawa-i alssabeeli

Independently of grammar, do you continue to argue that alkhinzeer/the pig is not an animal like alqird/the ape?

It is easy to deny a truth when one did not have knowledge of.

Sound Arabic knowledge, Hey? Arabs Grammar not the qurans.

You said

So, he made those people 'AS apes and pigs' this idea of transformation is an interpretation and is not dictated by sound Arabic grammar?

But I still can?t agree with you 50% truth.

Here is what I made of it using a simple dictionary Br, but each has his belief.

Karadun = apes,monkies,baboons.
karada=abject, mean, despicable.

Khaseeen =according to Arabic grammar this form is used about rational people. (And this is the word used in the ayah after the word apes)

Khaseh=should have been used if there where any such apes.

Thanks though.

progod

Peace,

Khaas'eena like you said is USUALLY used for people. Which shows that these people did not become animals but became like these animals.

Howver, like I said, this is usually.

You really didn't prove anything using Arabic grammar in the above. You didn't even check what form qiradatun is. All you did was look at the root. And I have to check if you looked it up with a qaf or a kaf. Because the letter is qaf and I wonder why you use k instead of q. Nonetheless, roots aren't enough dear Mz, you also have to look up Arabic forms. qiradah is of the form fi&alatun

Furthermore, the supposed grammarian that you quoted gave his interpretation not a grammatical explanation. As I said it is an interpretation, that is why I gave you the example of firaash (wa ja&alnaa al-arda firaashan) in the Quran as well so that you could use your own mind and see what i'm talking about. But you just want to say that the grammarians are all wrong to push your agenda, which, I'm sorry to say is not based on sound Arabic.

Of couse khinzeer is pig and al-qird an ape. However God made those people AS pigs and apes, not pigs and apes. Old Arabic grammar is the Quran's grammar as the Quran is in Old Arabic grammar. But please be careful not to confuse the reduced and more inflexible MSA grammar with Old Classical Arabic grammar. Many people don't know how to tell the differences.

As for Khaasi'eena as I pointed out this is what is usually used for people plurals and khaasi'ah for non-human plurals. However, Old Classical Arabic doesn't necessarily follow these rules and they are not fixed rules for Old Classical Arabic but for MSA.

You will see the saba&a samawaatun referred to as hunna as well as the ayaatun muhkamaatun. However we'll say that it is generally safe to say that the male non human plural most times takes feminine (animals will probably be the only exception if they are personfied).

If we safely assume that this is a khaasi'eena of people than this proves my point. The khaasi'eena is a description of the people not the apes and monkeys. The people are made AS pigs and apes and the PEOPLE are khaas'eena (despised).

Godbless,
Anwar

mz

Hi Anwar,

Good reply Br.

But i am a little stunned you havn't seen the reality of Adam and eve and the angels and stuff though.

God Bless.

progod

Peace,

I'm sorry your stunned. Maybe this means you are assuming a little too much about me. How about when I put forward an idea you work to try to get to the basis of my belief. that is what I try to do usually trying to help the person understand why I understand what I do. It is only when we understand where we are coming from that we can understand where we can stand together.

Godbless,
Anwar

mz

Salaams Br,All,

I'm sorry your stunned. Maybe this means you are assuming a little too much about me.

I hope not.

How about when I put forward an idea you work to try to get to the basis of my belief.
that is what I try to do usually trying to help the person understand why I understand what I do. It is only when we understand where we are coming from that we can understand where we can stand together.

If we had time enough then that is a good method.

I think we all need to look at the quran with respect to reality (The kitaab )- to have a common foundation of our understandings.

And as long as we don?t look at the quran with respect to our realities we will always have different tales to tell.

God Bless Anwar.

progod

Mz,

Your response has nothing to do with what I said. We have all the time in the world here. I do my best to look at someone's post and try to understand where they are coming from, and if I don't think I understand where they are coming from I ask them. Why are you giving excuses by saying we don't have enough time to try to arrive to mutual comprehension? Does that make sense to you?

Peace. I don't believe that al-kitaabu means reality. It means law, scripture, writing or prescription, but not reality. That is an esoteric interpretation of the word and is not based on sound Classical Arabic.

Looking at the Quran with respect to our realities is only good in helping us apply its messages to our realities. But when trying to define its words and the grammar it uses to understand its messages our realities have nothing to do with this. We need to look to grammar, the dictionaries for defintions and our intelligence to make sense out of these sentences once we understand the definitions and the grammar.

Godbless
Anwar

AaRoN

hey anwar what does it mean to say someone has flipped the script?

Samia

There is also good reason to see shajaratun as 'bad company' literally 'disputers', those who turned aside, or even possibly 'matter of controversy' (based of the form fa&alatun) instead of tree here. The first two being based off of a possible plural of shaajir, like kaafir and kafaratun, saafir safaratun (scribes) and saahir saharatun (magicians, beguilers). All of which are seen in the Quran.

Salaam Anwar

The problem with your analogy (shajara >safara; kafara; sa7ara) is that whenever these words are used in the qur'aan, we have a substantial proof that they are masculine plural, whereas in the case of shajara we have a substantial proof that it is singular feminine

shajara
235; 719; 720 this (haathihi fem sing); 722 that (tilkuma fem sing).

Sa7ara
7113 they said (qaaluu m.pl); victorious (ghaalibeen m.pl)
7120 prostrating (saajideen m.pl)
1080 Moses said to them (lahum m.pl)
2070 They said (qaaluu)
2640 KAANUU HUMMUL GHAALIBEEN (THE THREE WORDS ARE M.PL)
2641 qaaluu/they said; lanaa/ for us (qaaluu m.pl; lanaa pl first person)
2646 saajideen (m.pl)

safara
80 15-16 kiraam (honourable) masculine plural

kafara
8042 ulaa'ika hum these are (both masculine plural).

progod

Peace,

Thanks for that. This is good conversation. Samia, what about Waqalati alyahoodu laysati alnnasara AAala shayin waqalati alnnasara laysati alyahoodu AAala shayin. 2113

I know afterwards that it says 'wa hum yatloona' but even if it said 'wa tatluyaani' this would still be correct. So I agree that in those cases you mentioned there is a confirmation of 'hum' but this still does not mean that haadhihi al-shajarat cannot refer to a specific group of individuals. There is still room for understanding this within the text, but it is up to you to decide whether or not it contradicts with anything else within in the Quran and whether or not you wish to adopt this understanding.

You can technically say haadhihi-nnaasu or tilkannaasu in Old Arabic, as well a haa'ulaa and ulaa'ika.

If they have a proper name you can even refer to the group as hadhaa. Like 393 Israel Kullu alttaAAami kana hillan libanee israeela illa ma harrama israeelu AAala nafsiHI.

Godbless,
Anwar

Samia

Peace,

Thanks for that. This is good conversation. Samia, what about Waqalati alyahoodu laysati alnnasara AAala shayin waqalati alnnasara laysati alyahoodu AAala shayin. 2113

I know afterwards that it says 'wa hum yatloona' but even if it said 'wa tatluyaani' this would still be correct. So I agree that in those cases you mentioned there is a confirmation of 'hum' but this still does not mean that haadhihi al-shajarat cannot refer to a specific group of individuals. There is still room for understanding this within the text, but it is up to you to decide whether or not it contradicts with anything else within in the Quran and whether or not you wish to adopt this understanding.

You can technically say haadhihi-nnaasu or tilkannaasu in Old Arabic, as well a haa'ulaa and ulaa'ika.

If they have a proper name you can even refer to the group as hadhaa. Like 393 Israel Kullu alttaAAami kana hillan libanee israeela illa ma harrama israeelu AAala nafsiHI.

Godbless,
Anwar

Salaam Anwar

I get your point peace, as in "qaaltil yahuud uzair ibnullaah/ the jews say Osiris is the son of God"; "tanazzalul malaa'katu warru7u feeha/ the controllers/malaa'ika will be descended and among them is the holy spirit".

In the second verse we have the verb AND the suffixed pronoun as singular feminine, but this is for malaa'ika, which are not humans.

Do you have an example with feminine singular demonstrative pronooun for a group of humans?