Muslim here. Ask me a question..

[Greg Jennings]

I've been trying to figure out why this is exploding the last few pages.

What first captured my attention:

I'm a little surprised you are continuing on this vein after an infraction.


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.

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.


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: )
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:

Read from post #339 onward. Let's see if you reach the same conclusion as you have now.

Just one of the things you'll see is Apple never answering the question, "Why do no professors, theologians, or scholars of religion and/or Arabic languages agree with your translations?"

Don't you find it strange that Apple claims the Quran contains words that those who have studied it their whole lives say are not there? :think:



Side question: Is it name-calling to call someone who killed another a murderer? I would say it's not, because it's accurate. The same goes for lying, and so on. Just as if you kill then you're a killer, if you lie then you're a liar. If it offends anyone to be accurately called a liar, then there is a pretty simple solution: quit lying.

 

[Greg Jennings]

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!'

Freelight already refuted this very post. Again, do you think nobody notices when you repost an already defeated argument?

Ok, here we go.....

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

So,...this 'lexicon' (which is not an official translation necessarily btw) 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. Remember the term being used in 'proper context'. Honest 'exegesis'.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Apple7]

Lon,

Thanks for stating the obvious....

 

[freelight]

Ok, so lets cover this again......

Ok, so lets cover this again......

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!

Ok, lets read what Ibn Abbas and El Azheree both indicate: that the term can be used to mean exclusively 'Lord of the BOTH jinn and mankind', NOT 'jinn' exclusively, and don't forget.....the word 'jinn' is NOT even in the original text. I've already addressed this. The best you can 'assume' is that because Allah is Lord of both 'jinn' and 'mankind',...that this makes him Lord of jinn, just as much as he is Lord of mankind. That's all you got.

Remember, Allah is Lord of all. As far as appropriate titles go, of course we can say Allah is Lord of jinn, mankind, creation, the universe, the cosmos, the elements, earth, sun, moon, sky, spirits, etc.,...we can put any sentient being or inanimate thing on this list.

The One Supreme Almighty Deity, by nature and constitution is Lord and Creator, the Sustainer and Cherisher of all beings and things.

The fact is, the term 'rab alamin' refers to all sentient beings (jinn, mankind, etc.) and also refers to 'all that exists' in the broader sense. Context would deterimine how such is to be rendered, but this still does not in anyway shape or form, prove that Allah is a 'satan' or a 'devil' because he is the Lord of the jinn and all beings. Note that you cannot single out Lordship and make it exclusive to 'jinn' (in any special sense), since in this category of sentient being is also mankind, and the phrase also includes the totality of creation, unless qualified otherwise.

You have nothing here really, but a lexicon and only very few if but one popular translation of the Koran (Hilali/Khan) mentioning anything about the 'jinn' at all, and only in 'parenthesis'.

NOTE: He is who is Lord of the worlds, all worlds.

All means all.

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

Not really, as clarified above.....but if any following want catch up on previous discussion.....

Already addressed here, here, here, here.

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...

I did mention you had only something from 'one person' meaning Lane, but admitted that he did reference other persons with comments on the terms of translation, so I'm not claiming only one person makes mention of 'jinn' in the broader context here, just pointing out that your 'references' to support your 'association' of Allah with the 'jinn' regarding this term 'rabb alamin' is mentioned by only a few commentators, while 'jinn' are not specifically mentioned in the text.

Even so,...with the 2 or more other commentators mentioning 'jinn' as included in the creatures Allah lords over,...Allah being Lord of the jinn does not prove Allah is a 'satan' or a 'devil',....this is just so much non-sense, that its amazing this argument has gone on this far... to your own aggrandizement we might add. But for those following along who are intellectually honest with the facts, they can weigh the evidence or lack thereof and make up their own minds on the data available, and the clear rendering of the text, in all the available translations of the Koran. All there is that we can honestly say by authority of the text, is that Allah is Lord of the worlds, Lord of all being(s), Lord of all that exists, Lord of the cosmos. This is the claim of the language, which is 'all-inclusive of sentient beings and all creation'. And, this is all we need to know as to HOW the text reads and how its to be interpreted.

Oh, and don't forget.....there isn't 'diddly squat' here by inferred reference or assumption, that just because Allah is Lord of all, and that includes jinn (add here satan, the devil, belzeebub, or any fallen angels, demons, monsters, etc.) that this somehow makes Allah a 'satan' or 'devil'.

So, there you go....it amounts to 'Diddly Squat'.

 

[Apple7]

More clinic time...

More clinic time...

Ok, lets read what Ibn Abbas and El Azheree both indicate: that the term can be used to mean exclusively 'Lord of the BOTH jinn and mankind', NOT 'jinn' exclusively, and don't forget.....the word 'jinn' is NOT even in the original text. I've already addressed this.

What happened to your prior assertion that this was a 'lexicon from one person'..?!

Looks like you just completely abandoned that ignorant assertion...and now you increased that number by 100%!


You are incrementally making progress; but you still keep right on making the same novice mistakes.

There are TWO juxtaposed Arabic terms in view here...NOT one!

Thanks, however, for finally reading the lexical definition, for the first time, and confirming my rendering as correct.

The best you can 'assume' is that because Allah is Lord of both 'jinn' and 'mankind',...that this makes him Lord of jinn, just as much as he is Lord of mankind. That's all you got.

Wow....what a change from your previous denial that it meant nothing of the sort and had to be completely discarded!

See what reading can do for a person...?

Remember, Allah is Lord of all. As far as appropriate titles go, of course we can say Allah is Lord of jinn, mankind, creation, the universe, the cosmos, the elements, earth, sun, moon, sky, spirits, etc.,...we can put any sentient being or inanimate thing on this list.

No.

Again, you look, but you cannot see.

El Azheree confirms that the phrase applies to jinn, genii, and mankind, exclusively.

The One Supreme Almighty Deity, by nature and constitution is Lord and Creator, the Sustainer and Cherisher of all beings and things.

The Koranic 'allah', however, is a false pagan Arab god, dressed-up to mimic the true Biblical God, Jesus Christ.

Your ignorant liberalism cannot make it any different...

 

[Apple7]

The fact is, the term 'rab alamin' refers to all sentient beings (jinn, mankind, etc.) and also refers to 'all that exists' in the broader sense. Context would deterimine how such is to be rendered, but this still does not in anyway shape or form, prove that Allah is a 'satan' or a 'devil' because he is the Lord of the jinn and all beings. Note that you cannot single out Lordship and make it exclusive to 'jinn' (in any special sense), since in this category of sentient being is also mankind, and the phrase also includes the totality of creation, unless qualified otherwise.

Again, and again, and again....

There are TWO Arabic terms in view here....NOT ONE!

We know that you are proudly Arabic ignorant, but you would think that after enough repetition, that you could at least memorize the fact that a particular phrase of two words are under consideration here...

You have nothing here really, but a lexicon and only very few if but one popular translation of the Koran (Hilali/Khan) mentioning anything about the 'jinn' at all, and only in 'parenthesis'.

What I have, is access to the world's preeminent Arabic lexicon - of which, you are now just beginning to learn to read, and are accepting as fact for my assertion.

Be adult, and admit to this fact...

NOTE: He is who is Lord of the worlds, all worlds.

All means all.

Not according to El Azheree.

You claimed to have read it - but most obviously, you did not.

More lip-syncing...

Not really, as clarified above.....but if any following want catch up on previous discussion.....

Already addressed here, here, here, here.

What good is it to provide previous links to Openburhan?

You've already abandoned that old 'argument' of yours...

 

[Apple7]

I did mention you had only something from 'one person' meaning Lane, but admitted that he did reference other persons with comments on the terms of translation, so I'm not claiming only one person makes mention of 'jinn' in the broader context here, just pointing out that your 'references' to support your 'association' of Allah with the 'jinn' regarding this term 'rabb alamin' is mentioned by only a few commentators, while 'jinn' are not specifically mentioned in the text.

What a back-peddler!

Even so,...with the 2 or more other commentators mentioning 'jinn' as included in the creatures Allah lords over,...Allah being Lord of the jinn does not prove Allah is a 'satan' or a 'devil',....this is just so much non-sense, that its amazing this argument has gone on this far... to your own aggrandizement we might add. But for those following along who are intellectually honest with the facts, they can weigh the evidence or lack thereof and make up their own minds on the data available, and the clear rendering of the text, in all the available translations of the Koran. All there is that we can honestly say by authority of the text, is that Allah is Lord of the worlds, Lord of all being(s), Lord of all that exists, Lord of the cosmos. This is the claim of the language, which is 'all-inclusive of sentient beings and all creation'. And, this is all we need to know as to HOW the text reads and how its to be interpreted.

Oh, and don't forget.....there isn't 'diddly squat' here by inferred reference or assumption, that just because Allah is Lord of all, and that includes jinn (add here satan, the devil, belzeebub, or any fallen angels, demons, monsters, etc.) that this somehow makes Allah a 'satan' or 'devil'.

So, there you go....it amounts to 'Diddly Squat'.

Repeating your unreferenced opinion over and over won't change the facts of the time-proven lexical definition.

El Azheree seals the deal.

Keep avoiding....

:cigar:

 

[Lon]

Read from post #339 onward. Let's see if you reach the same conclusion as you have now.

Just one of the things you'll see is Apple never answering the question, "Why do no professors, theologians, or scholars of religion and/or Arabic languages agree with your translations?"

Don't you find it strange that Apple claims the Quran contains words that those who have studied it their whole lives say are not there? :think:

Well, I didn't have a conclusion, I said I wasn't getting it. His answer:

Spoiler

Already did.

Try not to overlook it this time...

An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume five, pp. 2138 - 2142


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.)


:cigar:

Side question: Is it name-calling to call someone who killed another a murderer?

Yes, that's why we have 'self-defense' 'manslaughter (almost worse sounding than murder)' and 'police-action.' Many cops, soldiers, and those protecting themselves have been given that name but it isn't accurate and is an accusative slur.

I would say it's not, because it's accurate.

(not sure if you meant "one who murders" but that correction would take care of the dissention probably)

The same goes for lying, and so on.

I think that's true to a point but we all don't see black and white in such terms (and that is saying something, because I'm more black and white than most in my thinking). Like killing, in general, we'd be careful what we say about different instances of it. On this, I was looking for something that could be considered a lie, and wasn't finding it. At times, I try to give benefit of doubt, but even after a bit of back and forth, I'd most of the time suggest one "is intentionally or unintentionally lying." I rarely pull the 'liar' card, though I think some do lie. I don't generally find lying to be a good debate skill though, and so those who do it don't last long on TOL, not only because it is a Christian website, but also because it doesn't debate well.

Just as if you kill then you're a killer

I'm not even sure that is true. There was that little boy that had to shoot two intruders. He told them he had a gun and he was terrified. I think 'killer" a bit harsh and inaccurate for that 12 year old.

if you lie then you're a liar.

I agree to a point, in the same way you might call that 12 year old a 'killer.' I'd think it'd be abusive and wrong. Rahab lied to protect men of Israel. Corrie Ten Boom lied to Nazis to save Jews. And while I think you empathize here, I 'think' Apple posted at least one source that met your criteria. I'd think your warning might suggest that someone else feels this isn't a warranted accusation either.

If it offends anyone to be accurately called a liar, then there is a pretty simple solution: quit lying.

Well, even calling someone a 'liar' can be wrong. I can either say "you are a liar" or "you are wrong."


In this case, I'm not seeing the alleged lie, cowardice, or thievery.

 

[freelight]

ending of one discussion, starting a new one

ending of one discussion, starting a new one

Well, I didn't have a conclusion, I said I wasn't getting it. His answer:


Yes, that's why we have 'self-defense' 'manslaughter (almost worse sounding than murder)' and 'police-action.' Many cops, soldiers, and those protecting themselves have been given that name but it isn't accurate and is an accusative slur.


(not sure if you meant "one who murders" but that correction would take care of the dissention probably)
I think that's true to a point but we all don't see black and white in such terms (and that is saying something, because I'm more black and white than most in my thinking). Like killing, in general, we'd be careful what we say about different instances of it. On this, I was looking for something that could be considered a lie, and wasn't finding it. At times, I try to give benefit of doubt, but even after a bit of back and forth, I'd most of the time suggest one "is intentionally or unintentionally lying." I rarely pull the 'liar' card, though I think some do lie. I don't generally find lying to be a good debate skill though, and so those who do it don't last long on TOL, not only because it is a Christian website, but also because it doesn't debate well.

I'm not even sure that is true. There was that little boy that had to shoot two intruders. He told them he had a gun and he was terrified. I think 'killer" a bit harsh and inaccurate for that 12 year old.


I agree to a point, in the same way you might call that 12 year old a 'killer.' I'd think it'd be abusive and wrong. Rahab lied to protect men of Israel. Corrie Ten Boom lied to Nazis to save Jews. And while I think you empathize here, I 'think' Apple posted at least one source that met your criteria. I'd think your warning might suggest that someone else feels this isn't a warranted accusation either.


Well, even calling someone a 'liar' can be wrong. I can either say "you are a liar" or "you are wrong."


In this case, I'm not seeing the alleged lie, cowardice, or thievery.

Granted you'd have to follow my own dialogue with apple7 to know the points I bring up against his 'interpretations' -

Apple7's claim has been refuted (imo, of course), despite his protests and ad hominem put-downs to anyone who challenges his interpretation of the passage in question, as it is a biased, bigoted assumption on his part concerning 'jinn' which are not mentioned in the text at all, and even if 'rabb alamin' refers in some passages more exclusively to 'jinn and mankind' (sentient beings), while in other places the term usually includes the whole of creation, you still cannot make a claim that since Allah is lord of all jinn and mankind (notice not 'jinn' alone), that this somehow makes him 'satan' or a 'devil'. This assumption is absurd.

My former post on this is the Segway-portal to tie in the dialogue progression for any interested in following this debate. On that note,...its near pointless to go on about Al-Fatihah 1.2, since its clear that a proper appropriate translation of this verse is 'Lord of the worlds, all beings, all creation'. - nothing more needs to be superimposed into the text, much less a rant about Allah needing to be 'Lord of jinn', which somehow is then construed to mean that now Allah is a 'satan' or a 'devil' (add in any 'bad guy' you can imagine)

~*~*~

I noticed Greg was banned for calling out what he perceived as 'lying', (I've seen posters here get away with a lot worse)......I wonder who had anything to do with making this known to a particular moderator....hmmmm. I wont even go there, since I know of some of the antics of folks around here. In any case,...Greg and my own points hold.

I was thinking of directing the discussions to apple7's claim that Allah is a pagan god or a 'devil' (satan himself?)...and any claim that 'Allah' is not the same 'God' of the Bible,...the same as 'YHWH-Elohim'. This would be an even more interesting discussion, if apple7 is up to it. This would cover the etymology issues too on the name 'Allah', in original languages that may correlate with the Hebrew/Aramaic names for 'God'. There is also some assumptions that Allah is a pagan moon-god, but I've seen that refuted elsewhere. If apple7 would like to engage this, let the discussion begin. Otherwise,...I've many other projects to attend.

 

[Apple7]

Apple7's claim has been refuted (imo, of course)...

No.

My interpretation is completely verifiable through the classic Arabic lexicons, as I have already amply demonstrated.

 

[Apple7]

I was thinking of directing the discussions to apple7's claim that Allah is a pagan god or a 'devil' (satan himself?)...and any claim that 'Allah' is not the same 'God' of the Bible,...the same as 'YHWH-Elohim'. This would be an even more interesting discussion, if apple7 is up to it. This would cover the etymology issues too on the name 'Allah', in original languages that may correlate with the Hebrew/Aramaic names for 'God'. There is also some assumptions that Allah is a pagan moon-god, but I've seen that refuted elsewhere. If apple7 would like to engage this, let the discussion begin. Otherwise,...I've many other projects to attend.

Of course.

We are just getting started...

 

[Lon]

Granted you'd have to follow my own dialogue with apple7 to know the points I bring up against his 'interpretations' -

Apple7's claim has been refuted (imo, of course), despite his protests and ad hominem put-downs to anyone who challenges his interpretation of the passage in question, as it is a biased, bigoted assumption on his part concerning 'jinn' which are not mentioned in the text at all, and even if 'rabb alamin' refers in some passages more exclusively to 'jinn and mankind' (sentient beings), while in other places the term usually includes the whole of creation, you still cannot make a claim that since Allah is lord of all jinn and mankind (notice not 'jinn' alone), that this somehow makes him 'satan' or a 'devil'. This assumption is absurd.

And here is where I'm lost. I don't believe it is for lack of reading, but because of it. Here is what I understand:

1) A link was asked for.
2)The link, rather, was a cut paste which should be understood when we are dealing with language. I have to do so myself at times.
3) The link was rejected, but, as I read it, such certainly does say "Lord of the Jinn."

Now at this point it gets messy. First was the accusation that Apple 'doctored' the post. I don't think even you find Apple that dubious. I've never seen it of him (and have no idea where you weigh in on it).
4) Even if Apple embraces it and defends it, is surely the piece asked for and however one finds it, compelling or not, it certainly offers Apple's interpretation.

✓) Everything correct so far?

5) The next thing I saw was 'stealing, lying, coward' regarding a demand for [more?] documentation, or discrediting this one? None of that made a lick of sense to me. It seemed like a) Apple provided & correctly attributed b) Apple correctly quoted, directly &/or indirectly that source and c) didn't seem to be shying away but kept insisting that document was it.

6) I've no idea why, even after an infraction, that this continued and that's when I wrote my first post, I just wasn't getting it.

7) I think we may challenge a source, but it is harder to do if we are not versed in the language. A suggestion that no Muslims like it is understandable and quotes are viable. I'd want to see more, but I don't feel exceptionally qualified to debunk Aramaic. It is a sister language to Hebrew, which I can read a little but I've no prowess at all with Aramaic.

My former post on this is the Segway-portal to tie in the dialogue progression for any interested in following this debate. On that note,...its near pointless to go on about Al-Fatihah 1.2, since its clear that a proper appropriate translation of this verse is 'Lord of the worlds, all beings, all creation'. - nothing more needs to be superimposed into the text, much less a rant about Allah needing to be 'Lord of jinn', which somehow is then construed to mean that now Allah is a 'satan' or a 'devil' (add in any 'bad guy' you can imagine)

~*~*~

I've read the Quran in English and find more than a few paragraphs objectionable. One reading it in Aramaic is beyond most of our ken. There are prominent linguists that give me pause. Even a quick Google of "Allah is..." will turn up a number of accusations along this line. As with Apple, I'd look toward linguists on such points. I am learning with the rest of you in regards to Islam. I know a bit, have not a lot of knowledge when it comes to Aramaic so am at the mercies of translators and commentators. I do know there is much concern in those circles, and is also why some have had death threats and others killed for their words concerning the Quran.

I noticed Greg was banned for calling out what he perceived as 'lying', (I've seen posters here get away with a lot worse)......I wonder who had anything to do with making this known to a particular moderator....hmmmm. I wont even go there, since I know of some of the antics of folks around here. In any case,...Greg and my own points hold.

You have a great need to litigate and advocate, but most of the time, you miss the pertinent. He had received a warning prior to this. I don't, however, want to get into an unrelated discussion about bans on TOL.

I was thinking of directing the discussions to apple7's claim that Allah is a pagan god or a 'devil' (satan himself?)...and any claim that 'Allah' is not the same 'God' of the Bible,...the same as 'YHWH-Elohim'. This would be an even more interesting discussion, if apple7 is up to it. This would cover the etymology issues too on the name 'Allah', in original languages that may correlate with the Hebrew/Aramaic names for 'God'. There is also some assumptions that Allah is a pagan moon-god, but I've seen that refuted elsewhere. If apple7 would like to engage this, let the discussion begin. Otherwise,...I've many other projects to attend.

Also something a bit beyond my need for involvement -Lon

 

[Apple7]

Great assessment and observations, Lon...

 

[Apple7]

...its near pointless to go on about Al-Fatihah 1.2, since its clear that a proper appropriate translation of this verse is 'Lord of the worlds, all beings, all creation'. - nothing more needs to be superimposed into the text, much less a rant about Allah needing to be 'Lord of jinn', which somehow is then construed to mean that now Allah is a 'satan' or a 'devil' (add in any 'bad guy' you can imagine)

But...

Why bow-out now...You were making such great progress!

We witnessed you completely abandoning the 'to be discarded' comments from your googled Openburhan website.

You had time to accept Lane's lexicon, as the reference standard, and were actually beginning to refer to it (Its not like you had any more of your own to refer to).

You were on the cusp of having to admit defeat.....and that is where you are at now....rather than admit defeat, you want to complain that its 'pointless'...!

Yeah...'pointless' from your defeated vantage point....lol..:rotfl:

 

[freelight]

so goes the story.........

so goes the story.........

And here is where I'm lost. I don't believe it is for lack of reading, but because of it. Here is what I understand:

1) A link was asked for.
2)The link, rather, was a cut paste which should be understood when we are dealing with language. I have to do so myself at times.
3) The link was rejected, but, as I read it, such certainly does say "Lord of the Jinn."

Now at this point it gets messy. First was the accusation that Apple 'doctored' the post. I don't think even you find Apple that dubious. I've never seen it of him (and have no idea where you weigh in on it).
4) Even if Apple embraces it and defends it, is surely the piece asked for and however one finds it, compelling or not, it certainly offers Apple's interpretation.

✓) Everything correct so far?

5) The next thing I saw was 'stealing, lying, coward' regarding a demand for [more?] documentation, or discrediting this one? None of that made a lick of sense to me. It seemed like a) Apple provided & correctly attributed b) Apple correctly quoted, directly &/or indirectly that source and c) didn't seem to be shying away but kept insisting that document was it.

6) I've no idea why, even after an infraction, that this continued and that's when I wrote my first post, I just wasn't getting it.

7) I think we may challenge a source, but it is harder to do if we are not versed in the language. A suggestion that no Muslims like it is understandable and quotes are viable. I'd want to see more, but I don't feel exceptionally qualified to debunk Aramaic. It is a sister language to Hebrew, which I can read a little but I've no prowess at all with Aramaic.

I've read the Quran in English and find more than a few paragraphs objectionable. One reading it in Aramaic is beyond most of our ken. There are prominent linguists that give me pause. Even a quick Google of "Allah is..." will turn up a number of accusations along this line. As with Apple, I'd look toward linguists on such points. I am learning with the rest of you in regards to Islam. I know a bit, have not a lot of knowledge when it comes to Aramaic so am at the mercies of translators and commentators. I do know there is much concern in those circles, and is also why some have had death threats and others killed for their words concerning the Quran.

You have a great need to litigate and advocate, but most of the time, you miss the pertinent. He had received a warning prior to this. I don't, however, want to get into an unrelated discussion about bans on TOL.


Also something a bit beyond my need for involvement -Lon

Hi Lon,

As I shared my portal post of my discussion with Apple7 on this subject if any want to follow all the points is here. If you want to follow that, you'll see my position on this very clearly. One can take it or leave it, but I see no evidence or proof from Al Fatihah 1.2 (see here in over 30 translations) that Allah is 'satan' or a 'devil',...its totally absurd.

I did read your reponse above, and nice that it was kinder in tone than other of your posts, minus any ad hominems, subtle or otherwise.

In any case, I've seen Apple7 in action elsewhere in his embellished interpretations and impositions of various passages of religious writings, manipulated to support his own bias and presuppositions and have challenged him accordingly.

We await to see his proofs that Allah is satan, the devil or whatever 'pagan god' he imagines. While this may be an exercise in futility, knowing his posturing and predetermined course and conclusions....

I refer to the universal, absolute, ultimate, omnipresent reality that we may call 'Deity', and this reality at the heart and circumference of all that exists, as being the infinite reality and space in which all things derive and exist by virtue of it alone, as One and All. This 'Real God', call it by whatever 'name' you wish, or whatever 'form' you choose to visualize, is a reality that is timeless, incorporeal, infinite and all-pervading. In this view I refer to the definition of 'God' by Theosophy, just as a point of reference, to extend one's consideration outside the veil of traditional theology. Its just another perspective of 'God' for one to consider and explore.

 

[Apple7]

In any case, I've seen Apple7 in action elsewhere in his embellished interpretations and impositions of various passages of religious writings, manipulated to support his own bias and presuppositions and have challenged him accordingly.

That is the quintessential reply that you use all the time when you are on the ropes.

Uhmmm....'I already refuted him on that'...'He has already been exposed'...'I can't be bothered to show you any of my claimes now...you will have to take my word on it...it is archived in some thread somewhere', etc, etc, etc...'

Not impressed.

 

[freelight]

That is the quintessential reply that you use all the time when you are on the ropes.

Uhmmm....'I already refuted him on that'...'He has already been exposed'...'I can't be bothered to show you any of my claimes now...you will have to take my word on it...it is archived in some thread somewhere', etc, etc, etc...'

Not impressed.

See: here and elsewhere. Readers can decide for themselves on this particular issue.

Happy New Year

 

[Apple7]

See: here and elsewhere. Readers can decide for themselves on this particular issue.

Happy New Year

If you want people to decide for themselves, then why would you provide a link to ONLY your post?!:kookoo:

People are more intelligent than you give them credit for...they have this entire thread with which to draw a conclusion....and they can see for themselves that you were soundly rebutted.

 

[freelight]

If you want people to decide for themselves, then why would you provide a link to ONLY your post?!:kookoo:

People are more intelligent than you give them credit for...they have this entire thread with which to draw a conclusion....and they can see for themselves that you were soundly rebutted.

That was just a portal post tieing in all my response to you. Of course I encourage readers to read the WHOLE discussion silly. I always advise a full and as thorough review and research of the ENTIRE dialogue. This goes for all subjects.

 

[Apple7]

That was just a portal post tieing in all my response to you. Of course I encourage readers to read the WHOLE discussion silly. I always advise a full and as thorough review and research of the ENTIRE dialogue. This goes for all subjects.

Again, it was to YOUR posts.

You were better off not saying anything, rather than drawing even more attention to your ignorance...