Muslim here. Ask me a question..

Apple7

New member
Ok, here we go.....

All you have above is a 'lexicon' from one person.

Its always one step forward, two gigantic steps backwards for you.

In your ignorance, you don't know the importance of Lane's Lexicon, from a hole in the ground.

Lane's Lexicon integrates over 110+ of the worlds very best Arabic lexicons into one resource!

Furthermore, Lane's Lexicon is the reference standard in the field of Arabic lexicography and has been for over 150 years!


So...your (falling to the cement floor) ignorant comment of 'one person' emanates from you being completely disengaged in the topic that you are dealing with...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Apple7

New member
And please note carefully the entire commentary which mentions other translators and their opinions about this 'term',...it can refer to all sentient beings and creation itself (inanimate, insentient matter, sun, moon, stars, heavenly bodies, elementals, etc.) and includes a 'plurality' of orders and catagories of life-forms. Also it appears in some places that the term is used more exclusively to indicate 'mankind' and 'jinn' more exclusively (as sentient beings/souls/spirits), but never only 'jinn' exclusively, unless the word 'jinn' is actually in the text being referred.

The hole just got a lot deeper....and a lot wider...for you...:rotfl:


العَالَمُ ذ , (S, Msb, K, &c.,) said by some to be also pronounced ↓ العَالِمُ , (MF, TA,) and pronounced by El-Hajjáj with hemz [i. e. العَأْلَمُ], is primarily a name for That by means of which one knows [a thing]; like as الخَاتَمُ is a name for “ that by means of which one seals ” [a thing]: accord. to some of the expositors of the Kur-án, its predominant application is to that by means of which the Creator is known: then to the intelligent beings of mankind and of the jinn or genii: or to mankind and the jinn and the angels: and mankind [alone]: Es-Seyyid Esh-Shereef [El- Jurjánee] adopts the opinion that it is applied to every kind [of these, so that one says عَالَمُ الإِِنْسِ (which may be rendered the world of mankind) and عَالَمُ الجِنِّ (the world of the jinn or genii) and عَالَمُ المَلَائِكَةِ (the world of the angels), all of which phrases are of frequent occurrence], and to the kinds [thereof] collectively: (TA: ) or it signifies الخَلْقُ [i. e. the creation, as meaning the beings, or things, that are created], (S, Msb, K,) altogether [i. e. all the created beings or things, or all creatures]: (K: ) or, as some say, peculiarly, the intelligent creatures: (Msb: ) or what the cavity (lit. belly) of the celestial sphere comprises, (K, TA,) of substances and accidents: (TA: ) [it may often be rendered the world, as meaning the universe; and as meaning the earth with all its inhabitants and other appertenances; and in more restricted senses, as instanced above: and one says عَالَمُ الحَيَوَانِ meaning the animal kingdom, and عَالَمُ النَّبَات the vegetable kingdom, and عَالَمُ المَعَادِنِ the mineral kingdom:] Jaafar Es-Sádik says that the عَالَم is twofold: namely, العَالَمُ الكَبِيرُ, which is the celestial sphere with what is within it; and العَالَمُ الصَّغِيرُ, which is man, as being [a microcosm, i. e.] an epitome of all that is in the كَبِير: and Zj says that العَالَمُ has no literal sing., because it is [significant of] a plurality [of classes] of diverse things; and if made a sing. of one of them, it is [significant of] a plurality of congruous things: (TA: ) the pl. is العَالَمُونَ (S, M, Msb, K, &c.) and العَوَالِمُ: (S, TA: ) and the sing. is [said to be] the only instance of a word of the measure فَاعَلٌ having a pl. formed with و and ن, (ISd, K, TA,) except يَاسَمٌ: (K, TA: ) [but see this latter word:] العَالَمُونَ signifies the [several] sorts of created beings or things: (S: ) [or all the sorts thereof: or the beings of the universe, or of the whole world:] it has this form because it includes mankind: or because it denotes particularly the sorts of created beings consisting of the angels and the jinn and mankind, exclusively of others: I'Ab is related to have explained رَبُّ العَالَمِينَ as meaning the Lord of the jinn, or genii, and of mankind: Katádeh says, the Lord of all the created beings: but accord. to Az, the correctness of the explanation of I'Ab is shown by the saying in the beginning of ch. xxv. of the Kur-án that the Prophet was to be a نَذِير [or warner] لِلْعَالَمِينَ; and he was not a نذير to the beasts, nor to the angels, though all of them are the creatures of God; but only to the jinn, or genii, and mankind. (TA.) ― -b2- عَالَمٌ is also syn. with قَرْنٌ [as meaning A generation of mankind; or the people of one time]. (O, voce طَبَقٌ, q. v.)


So...

Not only does Ibn Abbas support the reading of 'lord of the jinn', but the authority of this rendering is backed up by El Azheree where he references chapter 25 of the Koran!


Apparently, you have a selective reading disorder in addition to chronic denial...:rotfl:
 

Apple7

New member
More clinic time for you...

More clinic time for you...

So,...this 'lexicon' (which is not an official translation necessarily btw)

'Not an official translation'....?!

The very title of the Lexicon states Arabic - English.

The more you type, the more obtuse you look to us all...




does not really support your assumption, except to say that Lane describes Allah as 'Lord of the jinn' merely as a descriptive title, BUT NOTE,...it is NOT of jinn only, but of MANKIND too.....and...this is only the case in some passages, whereas the term usually includes all beings, all creation.

More ignorance on your part.

We are dealing with TWO words here, NOT one!

Are you really that disengaged?



Remember the term being used in 'proper context'. Honest 'exegesis'.

What would you know about either...?



Remember, only the not so good Hilali/Khan translation throws in the word 'jinn' in parenthesis, but 'jinn' it not in the original text. We keep reminding you of this.

Good thing that we have never used Khan as a reference point to begin with....right?

His rendering was your example....and, you run with some unreferenced comments from some back-woods webmaster that it should be discarded....but, in reality, it has merit in the lexicons.....but you ignore this....lol...how gullible are you?!

We use the world's best, Lane's lexicon.
 

Apple7

New member
This is still a day late and a dollar short of proving Allah is a 'satan' or 'devil' of any kind, and simply holds the fundamental monotheistic truth that 'God' (Allah, YHWH, Elohim, Brahman, The Supreme Being, Ain Soph, call 'Deity' by whatever name)...is the Lord and Creator of all beings, all creation.

On the contrary...you have proven that my premise is correct.



Anything else other than this basic monotheistic proposition (that 'God' is Lord of all, Lord of all worlds) is something being 'super-imposed' into the text. - and that my friend is the 'truth' of the matter.

The truth of the matter is that you missed today's yoga class, so that you could be clinic'ed in your ignorance of Arabic.

:cigar::cigar::cigar:
 

Greg Jennings

New member
On the contrary...you have proven that my premise is correct.





The truth of the matter is that you missed today's yoga class, so that you could be clinic'ed in your ignorance of Arabic.

:cigar::cigar::cigar:

And freelight continues to mop the floor with you.

You could gain a lot of respect by admitting where you err, you know. Nobody respects someone who can't admit when they're wrong
 

Greg Jennings

New member
I win.

You continue to lose.

Simple...

:cigar:

:chuckle:

Yes, everyone can bear witness to my "losing" here and decide for themselves who is really losing.

Is it the poster who has been found to be either fraudulent or misinformed by several other posters over two different threads? The very same poster who couldn't take being called out so he tattled like mature adults do?

Or is it the one who has called you on your inaccuracies, and asked you a myriad of questions that you have dodged over 16 times because if you answer, you reveal your fraud?
 

Apple7

New member
If only people fell for comments like this, then you might be halfway respected by others. As it stands however, they don't and you aren't.

You are good for at least a few more accusations.....you know, whatever it takes to distract yourself from the topic at hand...
 

Greg Jennings

New member
You are good for at least a few more accusations.....you know, whatever it takes to distract yourself from the topic at hand...

Do you believe your delusion? Or is it a superficial attempt to appear knowledgable?

I was leaning towards the latter for a few days, but I'm starting to think it's the former now.
 

Greg Jennings

New member
Lane's Lexicon integrates over 110+ of the worlds very best Arabic lexicons into one resource!

Furthermore, Lane's Lexicon is the reference standard in the field of Arabic lexicography and has been for over 150 years!

That's correct. And that's also why it's important that you don't lie about the information contained within it, or misrepresent anything there. There's a reason why no experts agree with your translations. And that reason is fairly evident: you're wrong.

Any intelligent person with any interest whatsoever in the truth will view freelight's refutations of your translations. Then they'll draw their own conclusions. They won't take your word for it, which is unfortunate for you. But very fortunate for those who prefer facts to mean-spirited lies
 

Apple7

New member
That's correct. And that's also why it's important that you don't lie about the information contained within it, or misrepresent anything there. There's a reason why no experts agree with your translations. And that reason is fairly evident: you're wrong.

Any intelligent person with any interest whatsoever in the truth will view freelight's refutations of your translations. They won't take your word for it, which is unfortunate for you. But very fortunate for those who prefer facts to mean-spirited lies


What ever you do, do not address the lexical definition directly...:dunce:

120403011412-dumb-and-dumber-1994-story-top.jpg
 

Greg Jennings

New member
What ever you do, do not address the lexical definition directly...:dunce:

120403011412-dumb-and-dumber-1994-story-top.jpg

I'll address it when you answer this question that I'm now asking for the 17th time: Why do no experts in religion or in Arabic languages agree with your translations of Allah as "lord of the jinn"? Why is it always translated by such experts as "lord of the world's" or "lord of all things"?

Answer that at last, and I'll address your question. However, I'm expecting yet another dodge from you. And everyone knows that honest men dodge questions 18 times in a row, right?
 

Apple7

New member
I'll address it when you answer this question that I'm now asking for the 17th time: Why do no experts in religion or in Arabic languages agree with your translations of Allah as "lord of the jinn"? Why is it always translated by such experts as "lord of the world's" or "lord of all things"?

Answer that at last, and I'll address your question. However, I'm expecting yet another dodge from you. And everyone knows that honest men dodge questions 18 times in a row, right?


Already done...

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4568392&postcount=422

Now, for the 100th time......ignore it...:rotfl:
 

Greg Jennings

New member
:chuckle:

Freelight has explained that to you more times than I can count. I won't pretend that I can do it in a more knowledgable and straightforward, easy-to-understand format than he has already.
Do you really think people won't notice that he's refuted you? Do you honestly think they're that stupid? Some who want to believe that Muslims worship Satan (quite a laughable concept on its own) will not bother to check it out for themselves, that I'll give you. But those that do care about finding out the truth (the only people that really matter) will go back and look. And they'll find you in error.

Unlike you, I don't want anyone to believe me. I want them to look for themselves. Probably because I have nothing to hide

Now, for the 100th time......ignore it...:rotfl:
Nice made up statistic here. You're good at making things up :chuckle:
 

Apple7

New member
:chuckle:

Freelight has explained that to you more times than I can count. I won't pretend that I can do it in a more knowledgable and straightforward, easy-to-understand format than he has already.
Do you really think people won't notice that he's refuted you? Do you honestly think they're that stupid? Some who want to believe that Muslims worship Satan (quite a laughable concept on its own) will not bother to check it out for themselves, that I'll give you. But those that do care about finding out the truth (the only people that really matter) will go back and look. And they'll find you in error.

Unlike you, I don't want anyone to believe me. I want them to look for themselves. Probably because I have nothing to hide


You can't even bring yourself to address the lexical entry.

You have nothing.
 

Apple7

New member
العَالَمُ ذ , (S, Msb, K, &c.,) said by some to be also pronounced ↓ العَالِمُ , (MF, TA,) and pronounced by El-Hajjáj with hemz [i. e. العَأْلَمُ], is primarily a name for That by means of which one knows [a thing]; like as الخَاتَمُ is a name for “ that by means of which one seals ” [a thing]: accord. to some of the expositors of the Kur-án, its predominant application is to that by means of which the Creator is known: then to the intelligent beings of mankind and of the jinn or genii: or to mankind and the jinn and the angels: and mankind [alone]: Es-Seyyid Esh-Shereef [El- Jurjánee] adopts the opinion that it is applied to every kind [of these, so that one says عَالَمُ الإِِنْسِ (which may be rendered the world of mankind) and عَالَمُ الجِنِّ (the world of the jinn or genii) and عَالَمُ المَلَائِكَةِ (the world of the angels), all of which phrases are of frequent occurrence], and to the kinds [thereof] collectively: (TA: ) or it signifies الخَلْقُ [i. e. the creation, as meaning the beings, or things, that are created], (S, Msb, K,) altogether [i. e. all the created beings or things, or all creatures]: (K: ) or, as some say, peculiarly, the intelligent creatures: (Msb: ) or what the cavity (lit. belly) of the celestial sphere comprises, (K, TA,) of substances and accidents: (TA: ) [it may often be rendered the world, as meaning the universe; and as meaning the earth with all its inhabitants and other appertenances; and in more restricted senses, as instanced above: and one says عَالَمُ الحَيَوَانِ meaning the animal kingdom, and عَالَمُ النَّبَات the vegetable kingdom, and عَالَمُ المَعَادِنِ the mineral kingdom:] Jaafar Es-Sádik says that the عَالَم is twofold: namely, العَالَمُ الكَبِيرُ, which is the celestial sphere with what is within it; and العَالَمُ الصَّغِيرُ, which is man, as being [a microcosm, i. e.] an epitome of all that is in the كَبِير: and Zj says that العَالَمُ has no literal sing., because it is [significant of] a plurality [of classes] of diverse things; and if made a sing. of one of them, it is [significant of] a plurality of congruous things: (TA: ) the pl. is العَالَمُونَ (S, M, Msb, K, &c.) and العَوَالِمُ: (S, TA: ) and the sing. is [said to be] the only instance of a word of the measure فَاعَلٌ having a pl. formed with و and ن, (ISd, K, TA,) except يَاسَمٌ: (K, TA: ) [but see this latter word:] العَالَمُونَ signifies the [several] sorts of created beings or things: (S: ) [or all the sorts thereof: or the beings of the universe, or of the whole world:] it has this form because it includes mankind: or because it denotes particularly the sorts of created beings consisting of the angels and the jinn and mankind, exclusively of others: I'Ab is related to have explained رَبُّ العَالَمِينَ as meaning the Lord of the jinn, or genii, and of mankind: Katádeh says, the Lord of all the created beings: but accord. to Az, the correctness of the explanation of I'Ab is shown by the saying in the beginning of ch. xxv. of the Kur-án that the Prophet was to be a نَذِير [or warner] لِلْعَالَمِينَ; and he was not a نذير to the beasts, nor to the angels, though all of them are the creatures of God; but only to the jinn, or genii, and mankind. (TA.) ― -b2- عَالَمٌ is also syn. with قَرْنٌ [as meaning A generation of mankind; or the people of one time]. (O, voce طَبَقٌ, q. v.)


So...

Not only does Ibn Abbas support the reading of 'lord of the jinn', but the authority of this rendering is backed up by El Azheree where he references chapter 25 of the Koran!


GJ.....'My eyes, my eyes.....take it way...take it away!'
 

Lon

Well-known member
So find me one expert who agrees with you. If your statement is true, that should be easy. Why won't you do it?

And if you can't find one, why won't you explain to me why that is, as I've requested repeatedly?
I've been trying to figure out why this is exploding the last few pages.

What first captured my attention:
Not really, no. I call someone a coward when they hide, I call someone a thief when they steal, and I call someone a liar when they lie.
I'm a little surprised you are continuing on this vein after an infraction.

You stole material from another without properly giving credit. Therefore you are a thief.
I'm not sure what this is referring to, but it is okay to indirectly quote another without giving sources. If it is word for word, that would be a TOL infraction and Apple would have had a sabbatical. He did give attribution for this. False accusation isn't always lying of purpose, but it is always false. I'm assuming this is why the warning in this case.
You hid and dodged when I asked you a question 16 times in a row. Therefore you are a coward.
Are we talking about this? It seems properly attributed. Is this the article you are looking for information on? It appears it is there to me.

You lied about E.W. Lane and the Quran. Repeatedly. Therefore you are a liar.
We generally don't find hypertext between posts that aren't cut/pasted. I'd think it was a legitimate quote 'unless' you had very good reason to think otherwise. I'm not seeing it (whether it was this or another post you were complaining against :idunno: )
That's not name-calling. That's outing you for what you are.
Well no, I think "liar" "coward" and "thief" are definitely names, especially if unsubstantiated. I'm not certain, but it 'looks' like you are still calling him a liar and a coward and a thief. That too I find odd, because it seems to me, it is right there in the quote he gave. You might have a significant problem with E.W. Lane, but aren't you to some degree projecting your angst on the messenger???

I'm not really getting into this, I'm trying to be a sounding board as well as allow input for whatever I'm missing because I don't get it :idunno:
 
Top