What is a jinn ?

[Fahad]

salam.

here is a good article by Layth :

http://free-minds.org/articles/satan/jinn.htm

[/*JM*/]

My own understanding of jinn from some earlier posts.

Hope it will help...

*********

I think the jinn here are the leaders/notables. The leaders are often powerful/overproud/arrogant people ; but not always : some of them can be righteous.
Some of them are worse : they manipulate others and lead them astray : they are the shayteen.
And the ins would be ordinary men.

*********

Let us read surah 6 assuming the jinn are the leaders.

[6:100] : And they made partners with God from among the Jinn/leaders, while He had created them. And they invented for Him sons and daughters without them having any knowledge! Be He glorified and far above what they describe.


In [6:100], 2 facts are exposed.
1) They invented sons for God
2) They take the leaders as partners for God.

Fact 1 gets refuted in verses [6:101-106]
Fact 2 gets refuted in verses [6:107-130]

[6:107] : And if God had willed, they would not have set up partners. And We did not place you over them as a guardian, nor are you over them as a sponsor.

=>Men should not seek to set up partners with God. Muhammad in not one. He is not a guardian to them, nor a protector (But their leaders are).

In [6:108-111], there is a description of their acts of disbelieving.

[6:112] : And thus we make for every prophet an enemy, the devils from among men and jinns/leaders, to inspire in each other with fancy words in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications.

=>The devils among them are the cause of their disbelief.

[6:116] : And if you obey the majority of those on Earth they will lead you astray; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only lie.

=>Some are liars, and the rest follow the lies.

In [6:118-121], we learn that an example of their lies is that they invent false laws about what is prohibited or allowed to eat.

[6:121] : And do not eat from that which God’s name has not been mentioned, for it is vile. And the devils they inspire their supporters to argue with you; and if you obey them, then you have set up partners.

=> To set partners = to obey the shaytans and their supporters instead of obeying God (explanation of [6:100]).

[6:123] : And thus, We have made in every town the leaders of its guilty ones, that they make plans therein. And they plan not but against themselves, and they perceive not.

=>Here, the leaders are introduced . They make (wrong) plans.

[6:128] : And on the day he will gather the all together: “O assembly of Jinn/leaders, you took away a great part of men.” And their friends among men will say: “Our Lord, some of us profited by others and we have reached our appointed term which thou didst appoint for us. He will say : the fire is your abode – you shall abide therein, except as Allah please. Surely thy lord is wise, knowing.

=>The leaders have took away ordinary men.
=>The ordinary men confess they have profited of their leaders (they are not innocent)
=>All of them ; the leaders as well as the ordinary men are guilty ; they will all go to Hell.

[6:130] : O community (mashar) of jinn/leaders and men, did there not come to you messengers from among you, relating to you my messages and warning you of the meeting of this day of yours [...]

The  jinn cannot be nomads and the ins urbanites ; because these verses make clear that they live together and mix. A mashar is a community whose affair is one and the same.

*********

We can find further confirmations in surah 34.

[34:27, 31-33] : Say: “Show me those whom you have set up as partners with Him! No; He is but God, the Noble, the Wise.” [...] And those who rejected have said: “We will not believe in this Quran, nor in what is already with him.” And if you could but see these transgressors when they stand before their Lord, how they will accuse one another back and forth. Those who were weak will say to those who were mighty: “If it were not for you, we would have been believers!”
Those who were mighty will say to those who were weak: “Did we turn you away from the guidance after it had come to you? No, it was you who were criminal.”
And those who were weak will say to those who were mighty: “No, it was your scheming night and day, when you commanded us to reject God, and to set up equals to Him.” And they will be filled with regret, when they see the retribution. And We will place shackles around the necks of those who rejected. Are they not being requited for what they used to do?

[34:40-41] : And on the Day when He gathers them all, He will say to the Angels: “Was it you that these people used to serve ?” They will Say: “Be You glorified. You are our Lord, not them. No, most of them were serve the Jinn/leaders; most were believers to them". So today, none of you can help or harm one another. And We will say  to the transgressors: “Taste the retribution of the Fire that you used to deny.”

Here, we find again the same story :
-Some men set up partners with God
-The mighty (the leaders) use to make plans
-they command the weak (the ordinary people) to reject God
-they are the partners the ordinary people set up with God
-they will all (leaders and ordinary men) be gathered ; and found guilty

*********

Some other examples :

[28:62-64] : And on the Day when He calls upon them, saying: “Where are My partners whom you used to claim?”
Those who have deserved the retribution will Say: “Our Lord, these are the ones we misled; we misled them only because we ourselves were misled. We seek to absolve ourselves to You, it was not us that they worshipped.”
And it will be said: “Call upon your partners,” but they will not respond to them. And they will see the retribution. If only they were guided!

[40:47-48] : And when they argue in Hell, the weak will say to those who were arrogant: “We used to be your followers, can you take from us any portion of the Fire?”
Those who were arrogant will Say: “We are all in it together, for God has passed judgment upon the servants.”

[14:21-22] : And they appeared before God, all of them. And the weak ones said to those who were arrogant: “We were following you, so will you avail us anything from God’s retribution?” They said: “If God had guided us, then we would have guided you. It makes no difference if we cry out or are patient, for we have no refuge.”
And the devil said when the matter was complete: “God had promised you the promise of truth, and I promised you and broke my promise. And I had no power over you except that I invited you and you responded to me. So do not blame me, but blame yourselves; I cannot help you nor can you help me. I reject that you have set me as a partner before this; the wicked will have a painful retribution.”

[34:64-68] : God has cursed the rejecters, and He has prepared for them Hell.
Eternally they abide therein. They will find no ally, or victor.
On the Day when their faces will be turned over in the Fire, they will Say: “Oh, we wish we had obeyed God, and obeyed the messenger”
And they will Say: “Our Lord, we have obeyed our leaders and our learned ones, but they misled us from the path.”
“Our Lord, give them double the retribution, and curse them with a mighty curse.”

[72:6] “And there were men from among mankind who used to seek help from the men among the Jinn/leaders, but they only helped increase them in sin.”

*********

Let's have a look at surah 18.

In verses [18:32-46], God says it is of no avail to seek power on earth, to accumulate wealth and multiply children (like in [33-34-39]). In verses [18:47-49], God says that these kind of people will be shown guilty (and sent to Hell).

And then :
[18:50] : And We said to the Angels: “Submit to Adam.” So they all submitted except for Iblis, he was of the Jinn/leaders, so he disobeyed the order of his Lord. “Will you take him and his progeny as allies besides Me, while they are your enemy?” Miserable for the wicked is the substitute!

Here, Iblis symbolizes the force that lead people so seek power/leadership. Remember the leaders are often described as arrogant and wicked. His progeny repersents the men that are the leaders in the communities ; which ordinary men take as allies/partners besides God (as we have seen above).

Furthermore, this understanding is consistent with all we can read in the Quran about Iblis (he is arrogant ; he feels superior to others, etc...).

*********

Another very cogent proof that jinn = commanders/leaders.

[27:38-39] :He said: “O commanders, which of you can bring me her throne before they come to me surrendering?”
A powerful being from among the Jinn/commanders/leaders said: “I will bring it to you before you rise from your station. For I am strong and trustworthy.”

Why would a nomad (or an invisible being, or an invisible thought) answer to this question, as it was asked to the leaders ?

Peace

*********

See also : http://www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2714&start=0

[idolfree1]

Peace be upon you,

I cannot agree with the leaders understanding as all leaders are not wicked. The righteous also require leaders. The prophets would have been/are leaders as well.

[/*JM*/]

Peace be upon you,

I cannot agree with the leaders understanding as all leaders are not wicked. The righteous also require leaders. The prophets would have been/are leaders as well.

Peace,

To get my point, you have to figure that the milieu in which the prophet lived was of the chiefdom type.

The word jinn, as I understand it, designates the chiefs/leaders/nobles/elite in this kind of organization (and the word ins designates the commoners).

These leaders may be called jinn for 2 raisons:
- since they do not involve in agricultural activities, they are rarely seen (jinn = hidden, rarely seen)
- because they protect the commoners (janna = to hide, to protect)

Please read the Quran with this in mind. You will experience it fits very well.

Peace

*********************

A chiefdom is any community led by an individual known as a chief.

In anthropological theory, one model of human social development rooted in ideas of cultural evolution describes a chiefdom as a form of social organization more complex than a tribe, and less complex than a state or a civilization. Chiefdoms are characterized by pervasive inequality of peoples and centralization of authority. At least two inherited social classes (elite and commoner) are present, although social class can often be changed by extraordinary behavior during an individual's life. A single lineage/family of the elite class will be the ruling elite of the chiefdom, with the greatest influence, power, and prestige. Kinship is typically an organizing principle, while marriage, age, and gender can affect one's social status and role.

A single simple chiefdom is generally composed of a central community surrounded by or near a number of smaller subsidiary communities. All of these communities recognize the authority of a single kin group or individual with hereditary centralized power, dwelling in the primary community. Each community will have its own leaders, which are usually in a tributary and/or subservient relationship with the ruling elite of the primary community.

A complex chiefdom is a group of simple chiefdoms controlled by a single paramount center, and ruled by a paramount chief. Complex chiefdoms have two or even three tiers of political hierarchy. Nobles are clearly distinct from commoners and do not usually engage in any form of agricultural production. The higher members of society consume most of the goods that are passed up the hierarchy as a tribute. Reciprocal obligations are fulfilled by the nobles carrying out ritual that only they can perform. They may also make token, symbolic redistributions of food and other goods. In two or three tiered chiefdoms, higher ranking chiefs have control over a number or lesser ranking individuals, each of whom controls specific territory or social units. Political control rests on the chief's ability to maintain access to a sufficiently large body of tribute, passed up the line by lesser chiefs. These lesser chiefs in turn collect from those below them, from communities close to their own center. At the apex of the status hierarchy sits the paramount.

Chiefdoms have been shown by anthropologists and archaeologists to be a relatively unstable form of social organization. They are prone to cycles of collapse and renewal, in which tribal units band together, expand in power, fragment through some form of social stress, and band together again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiefdom

[/*JM*/]

Please also read the following extract of the book NonZero, by Robert Wright, with a special emphasis on what I have underlined.

You will notice that all this behavior patterns of the chiefs/jinns (and especially their large ego and their usage of idol worship) are described in the Quran.



See also http://www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5787.0



******************

Three centuries ago, when Europeans in North America encountered the chief of the Natchez Indians, they couldn't help but notice his high self-esteem. One Jesuit priest observed that he "knows nothing on earth more dignified than himself." And, since the chief knew nothing in the heavens greater than the sun, it seemed only natural to deem himself "brother of the Sun." This logic made sense to the sun-worshiping Natchez people, who vied for proximity to the chief's divine aura. Upon his death, those who had the honor of accompanying him into the afterlife would swallow enough tobacco to lose consciousness and then be ritually strangled.

From a modern vantage point, it is hard to relate either to the chief or to his followers. Few politicians today consider themselves gods or demigods?or, at any rate, few would admit it. And few citizens aspire to spend eternity in the company of politicians. It's tempting, indeed, to dismiss the Natchez people as a bizarre aberration. But they were actually pretty typical?typical of human beings living in a particular phase of cultural evolution: the chiefdom, in which numerous villages are subordinated to firm, centralized political leadership, and that leadership is distinctly institutionalized.

So far as we can tell from the archaeological record, all the ancient state-level societies were preceded in cultural evolution by chiefdoms. So far as we can tell from the ethnographic record, the leaders of chiefdoms have routinely claimed special access to divine force. And, remarkably, their people have typically considered this claim plausible.

How can we say with confidence that "chiefdom" is a standard phase of cultural evolution, a natural transition between the "Big Man" society and the states of the ancient world? Since the rubble of prehistory by definition holds no written records, what lets us discern the social structure of a long-lost people? Here the chief's characteristically large ego becomes a good source of illumination.

We know from chiefdoms observed over the past few centuries that chiefs go to great lengths to underscore their chieflinesss. Some Polynesian chiefs turned their entire faces into ornate works of art, enduring a painful, tattoo-like engraving process that leaves the skin looking like the leather on a fancy cowboy boot. Other chiefs have force-fed their wives into obesity, creating vivid testament to their affluence. Unfortunately for archaeologists, fat cells and engraved skin don't fossilize well. But other common forms of chiefly self-advertisement are more enduring, such as monumental architecture, often built in tribute to (and as a reminder of) the chief's distinguished lineage.

Hence the huge mounds built in North America as tombs for past chiefs. Or the pyramid-like temples on Tahiti, or the earliest ziggurats in Mesopotamia. The giant stone heads on Easter Island, up to ten meters tall, also suggest social organization beyond the Big Man level. Using these and other hallmarks of a chiefdom, archaeologists have found a clear pattern: After agriculture first spreads across a region, chiefdoms tend to follow.

This doesn't mean that farming is a prerequisite for a chiefdom. Natural abundance, and attendant population density, will occasionally do the trick. As we've seen, the Northwest Indians were on the verge of chiefdomhood. And the Calusa of Florida, also coastal hunter-gatherers, were a full-fledged chiefdom, whose leader dispatched an armada of eighty canoes (not enough) to battle Ponce de Leon.

Nor, on the other hand, are we saying that chiefdoms inevitably follow fast on the domestication of plants and animals. In the jungles of Amazonia or New Guinea, farming doesn't become very productive very fast. But given a friendly environment and a millennium or two, widespread agriculture does seem to propel social organization into the age of chiefdoms.

Thus, farming and cattle ranching come to England around 4000 B.C., and within a thousand years "megaliths"?orderly arrangements of boulders, as at Stonehenge--start appearing. The same pattern? first farming, then chiefdoms?is found earlier in continental Europe. (Julius Caesar would happen upon chiefdoms when he ventured into Germany and Gaul.) In Mesoamerica?Central America and the south of modern Mexico?farming villages were common by 2,000 B.C., and within a thousand years, immense stone heads, in the Easter Island genre, had been carved. And so on. Chiefdoms, the scholar Randolph Widmer has written, "were at various times the most common form of society found throughout Europe, Africa, the Americas, Melanesia, Polynesia, the Near East, and Asia." Around the world, with the multiple invention and rapid spread of agriculture, cultural evolution marched on. Chiefdoms sustained the basic trend toward larger and more complex social organization.

They seem to have flourished in part by harnessing large quantities of non-zero-sumness. The chief, like the Northwest Indians' Big Man, orchestrated much of the necessary coordination. But the orchestra was larger?thousands, even tens of thousands of people, sometimes spread over diverse landscapes, with diverse resources. So economic integration could be deeper and broader, with more division of labor and larger swaths of regular economic intercourse. Capital projects could be more ambitious?irrigation systems, even the occasional dam.

Sounds wonderful. But it poses two puzzles.

First, how could the cold logic of non-zero-sumness thrive in a hotbed of ridiculous superstition? How, if at all, did things like sun worship and ritual strangulation translate into economic efficiency?

The second puzzle is how the stereotypical chief could be a faithful steward of the public good. Chiefs, after all, aren't known for their sensitivity to the welfare of others. Just ask four sixteenth-century Calusa village leaders who were subordinate to the paramount chief. Not subordinate enough, apparently. He cut off their heads and displayed them at a party. The followers of Chief Powhatan (father of the Indian princess Pocahontas) were described this way by the Englishman John Smith: "At his feet they present whatsoever he commndeth and at the least frown of his brow, their greatest spirits will tremble with fear." This attitude is not a good antidote to a politician's self-aggrandizing tendencies.

One standard response to this puzzle is simple: Chiefs actually didn't serve the public; they duped the public into serving them, and religion was part of the duping. As one archaeologist puts it, "Chiefs coopt the religious authority of the community for themselves." In this view, a chiefdom's division of labor and its public works did yield positive-sums?more output than the same people could have produced working alone but the chiefs then appropriated the gains rather than returning them to the people whose synergy created them. Chiefs, in short, were parasites.

Here we revisit a venerable debate we've already touched on, a debate that applies to much of human history: the question of exploitation by ruling elites. At one extreme are Panglossian optimists, often of a rightward political bent, who can find the sunny side of the most gratuitous social inequality. At the other extreme are those--typically on the left, and sometimes Marxist?who see exploitation everywhere they look.

One place to seek evidence in this debate is Polynesia. This vast stretch of the south Pacific, dotted sporadically by islands, is a laboratory of chiefdomhood. Between 200 B.C. and A.D. 1,000, settlers leapfrogged from island to island, starting new societies. In some cases, such as Hawaii (settled around A.D. 400), these social experiments were thereafter isolated from the others. Such seclusion notwithstanding, a general pattern emerged across Polynesia: the blossoming of chiefdoms that grew more complex over time. The question is: Was it "good" complexity, fairly equitable in its benefits, or was it "bad" complexity? And where did religion fit in?

THE POLYNESIAN CHIEFDOMS

The generic Polynesian chief had plenty of sacred clout. He was an earthly representative of the gods, the conduit through which divine power, or mana, flowed into society. Indeed, he possessed tapu-such sanctity that commoners were not to come in direct contact with him. (Hence the modern word taboo.) Some chiefs were carried around on litters and had trained spokesmen, "talking chiefs," who handled the dirty business of public communication. The Polynesian chief, observed one western scholar, "stands to the people as a god."...

http://www.nonzero.org/chap7.htm

[Arnold Yasin]

Peace,

I do agree that the term jinn also implies chiefs. But i don't believe it refers to one thing in particulair. Jinn  means something hidden/concealed/rarely seen. It is like the term walking being, does this refer to humans alone? Defenitly not. Millions of species fall under this term. It is not a title of one species as human or spider, it is a description of an attribute: anything that walks. The same applies for the term jinn:hidden/concealed/rarely seen things/beings. This is not a title refering to one species. It refers to anything that is concealed/rarely seen that fits the context of the verses where they are mentioned. To believe jinns can only refer to one thing, leaders or mythological invisible beings etc., is the same as saying walking beings can only refer to humans. Jinn is not a title but a description of an attribute which encompasses many things.

Peace

[/*JM*/]

This is still my current understanding, whereas another translation may fit better in some verses.

Feel free to ask me questions in this thread:
http://www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4435.0

Peace

PS : I am glad you are now opening the links to other threads

Thanks bro

I will start with this but I have many, now there will be no emotional refutes we only need logical Quran refutes

you say Jinns means "the human leaders", or "The humans who have power and authority", while Ins means "Ordinary human", or "A Human with no power or Aurhority"

Would that verse then is only talking to the ordinary humans and not to their leaders in power (The Jinns)?

O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women;- reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you): for Allah ever watches over you.
[The Quran ; 4:1]

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ اتَّقُواْ رَبَّكُمُ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُم مِّن نَّفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا وَبَثَّ مِنْهُمَا رِجَالاً كَثِيرًا وَنِسَاء وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ الَّذِي تَسَاءلُونَ بِهِ وَالأَرْحَامَ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلَيْكُمْ رَقِيبًا (1)

But please bro don't try and use this argument:

Nas <> Ins

because 500% Nas = Ins

I have plenty or these sort of questions bro, and btw I only read previous posts for those whom I'm interested to open a dialogue with

Salam

Peace Ahmed

1) I think the word nafs would have better been translated by the word ?soul? (?a single soul?) than by the word ?person? (?a single person?).

2) Contrary to the popular interpretations, I do not think this verse is referring to the primary creation of the human kind. I think it refers to the creation of each of us, from a drop of sperm, in the wombs of our mothers.

This is confirmed in the following verses:

[53:32] : [...] He has been fully aware of you since He initiated you from the Earth, and while you were embryos in your mothers' wombs[?]

[16:78] : And God brought you out of your mothers wombs while you knew nothing. [?]

[22:5] : O mankind, if you are in doubt as to the resurrection, then We have created you from dirt, then from a seed, then from an embryo, then from a fetus developed and undeveloped so that We make it clear to you. And We settle in the wombs what We wish to an appointed time [?]

[39:6] : He created you from one person, then He made from it its mate. [?]. He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, a creation after a creation in three darkness?s. [...]

[49:13] : O mankind, We created you from a male and female [...]

3) The Arabic words can have different meanings depending of the context.  As an example, the word azwaj can mean ?mates?, ?spouses?, or ?pairs?. In the same way, the word ins can refer to ?mankind?, or it can also refer to the ?common people? when it is used with the word jinn.

Here is an example:

[114:1-6] : Say: I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind, The King of mankind, The god of mankind, From the evil of the sneaking whisperer, Who whispers into the chests of mankind, From among the jinn and nas.

NB : nas is the plural of ins.

In these verses, the word ins is used in the sense of ?mankind? in every occurrence, except the last. Translating ins by ?mankind? in the last verse makes no sense.

Here is how I would translate it :
[114:4-6] : Who whispers into the chests of mankind, among the chiefs and commoners.

Please note that God is never said to be The lord of mankind and jinnkind, but the lord of mankind only. So, the ins and jinn that are mentioned in [114:6] can only be 2 classes of human beings.

This is in line with the following verse:
[51:56] : I did not create the jinn and the ins except to serve Me.

Peace

[/*JM*/]

Peace JM

Here is another serious one bro, in the following verses we read:


26: We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape;
27: And the Jinn race, We had created before, from the fire of a scorching wind.

[The Quran ; 15:26-27]

وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الإِنسَانَ مِن صَلْصَالٍ مِّنْ حَمَإٍ مَّسْنُونٍ (26)
وَالْجَآنَّ خَلَقْنَاهُ مِن قَبْلُ مِن نَّارِ السَّمُومِ (27)


Two serious questions must be raised by the above verses:

1) were the human leaders created differently from the ordinary humans? sounds like two different races to me
3) were the human leaders created BEFORE the ordinary humans?

see bro, that whole concept started to fall over

I still have more but I will need a bit of a break please

Cheers

Peace Ahmed,

My opinion is that these verses do not refer to the primary creation of 2 different species.

The expression  Khulika min is also used in the verse [21:37] : Khuliqa al-insanu min AAajal, literally ?He created man out of haste?.
Does it mean that God took some haste, then mixed it with clay to create the human being ?
Obviously not.
It simply means that man is naturally hasty.

Therefore, I think that the 2 verses you have quoted describe the mindsets of the jinn (chiefs) and ins (commoners), the commoners being malleable (like clay), and the chiefs being fiery (like fire).

This is confirmed by the verses I have quoted in this post :
http://www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5787.0

A similar understanding can be found in the commentary of Muhammad Ali :
http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/ch015.pdf, see note 27a

Peace

[AhmedBahgat]

Peace Ahmed

Peace bro

1) I think the word nafs would have better been translated by the word ?soul? (?a single soul?) than by the word ?person? (?a single person?).

I agree, I just copied one of the many flawed translation around the net, the above suppose to be by Yusuf Ali

2) Contrary to the popular interpretations, I do not think this verse is referring to the primary creation of the human kind. I think it refers to the creation of each of us, from a drop of sperm, in the wombs of our mothers.

This surely does not make any sense, let?s break the verse and see if you are right:

Let?s try Picthal this time:

O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Be careful of your duty toward Allah in Whom ye claim (your rights) of one another, and toward the wombs (that bare you). Lo! Allah hath been a watcher over you.
[The Quran ; 4:1]

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ اتَّقُواْ رَبَّكُمُ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُم مِّن نَّفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا وَبَثَّ مِنْهُمَا رِجَالاً كَثِيرًا وَنِسَاء وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ الَّذِي تَسَاءلُونَ بِهِ وَالأَرْحَامَ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلَيْكُمْ رَقِيبًا (1)


يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ اتَّقُواْ رَبَّكُمُ , ? O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord?
الَّذِي خَلَقَكُم مِّن نَّفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ , ? Who created you from a single soul?, well the message does not sound about each one of us, RATHER ALL OF US  TOGETHER, this is obvious from the word ?FROM A SINGLE SOUL? which is Adam for sure

وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا , ? from it created its mate?, now it may get a bit complicated under your concept, if the message is about each one of us then my mate was not created from me really, do you agree?, how about your mate, was it created from you?, hmmm, let me guess, I guess not

وَبَثَّ مِنْهُمَا رِجَالاً كَثِيرًا وَنِسَاء , ? and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women?, well bro, can you see the flaw in your concept or not yet?, well let me explain, me and my mate may not spread a multitude of men and women, so far they are only TWO, how about you?, well how about the ones who will be living almost at the end of time?, would the above verse be a contradiction then under your wrong understanding?,  well how about the ones who can?t have children at all ?either by choice or forced?? would that verse be talking about them?, of course not bro, it is simply talking about Adam and his mate then all those who spread from them, this makes sense to a child man, I can't believe how many members here twist and play with the Quran verses as they do in here, well the sunnis do not do it as much to be honest,

This is confirmed in the following verses:

What is confirmed bro?, that 4:1 is talking about each one of us?

[53:32] : [...] He has been fully aware of you since He initiated you from the Earth, and while you were embryos in your mothers' wombs

mate, what are you going on about in here to say this is confirmed, mate please be sensible otherwise you are doing exactly what brother Ayman is doing, I can?t believe this man, there is no relation whatsoever between 4:1 and 53:32

[16:78] : And God brought you out of your mothers wombs while you knew nothing.

but what that has to do with the following sequence:

1)   Allah created one Nafs
2)   From that Nafs Allah created its partner
3)   From the two, many men and women spread

There is no link whatsoever between the above and 16:78 but thanks anyway

[22:5] : O mankind, if you are in doubt as to the resurrection, then We have created you from dirt, then from a seed, then from an embryo, then from a fetus developed and undeveloped so that We make it clear to you. And We settle in the wombs what We wish to an appointed time

This is just a different sequence to the Adam/Partner/All humanity sequence, please don?t compare apple with mangos

[39:6] : He created you from one person, then He made from it its mate. [?]. He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, a creation after a creation in three darkness?s. [...]

well, now we are talking 39:6 sure is talking about 2/3 of the sequence mentioned in 4:1, it only mentioned the first two sequences of creating Adam then its partner, the third sequence mentioned in 4:1 (the spread of many men and women from Adam and his partner? is not mentioned here and that?s about it really

if anything is confirmed it will be the first two sequences i.e. the creation if Adam then from it Allah created his partner

[49:13] : O mankind, We created you from a male and female [...]

That is right but this is a general statement that have exceptions

For example Adam was created from nothing ?not from a male and female?

Adam?s partner was created from a male only ?not from a male and female?

Jesus was created from a female only ?not from a male and female?

So Allah did all possibilities if you consider that all humans coming from Adam and his partner excluding Jesus came from a male and female, so 49:13 is just a general law that does not apply at least to Adam, his partner and Jesus

3) The Arabic words can have different meanings depending of the context.  As an example, the word azwaj can mean ?mates?, ?spouses?, or ?pairs?. In the same way, the word ins can refer to ?mankind?, or it can also refer to the ?common people? when it is used with the word jinn.

while I agree that the context controls the meaning the rest of the above is non sense bro, I?m sorry

Here is an example:

[114:1-6] : Say: I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind, The King of mankind, The god of mankind, From the evil of the sneaking whisperer, Who whispers into the chests of mankind, From among the jinn and ins.

In these verses, the word ins is used in the sense of ?mankind? in every occurrence, except the last. Translating ins by ?mankind? in the last verse makes no sense.[/quote]

Sorry, what was that? Sounds like a case of desperation to me, anyway the last word of this sura is ?Nas? not ?Ins? while I agree both are the same I still can?t see your point

in fact the abive sura clearly shows that the Nas and Jinn are different races because Allah said at the end ?From among the jinna and Nas?.

Here is how I would translate it :
[114:4-6] : Who whispers into the chests of mankind, among the chiefs and commoners.

ok, thanks bro

Please note that God is never said to be The lord of mankind and jinnkind, but the lord of mankind only. So, the ins and jinn that are mentioned in [114:6] can only be 2 classes of human beings.

Mate, I?m sorry I hate wasting my time with this silly arguments, so the Quran didn?t tell us that Allah is the Lord of the chickens, would that mean for you that the chickens is  a class of humans? Or the chickens don?t have a God?

This is in line with the following verse:
[51:56] : I did not create the jinn and the ins except to serve Me.

Peace

and how about the chickens?

Salam bro and good night

[/*JM*/]

Peace Ahmed,

Please note I have created another thread to discuss the issue of the creation of man (with or without Adam)

3) The Arabic words can have different meanings depending of the context.  As an example, the word azwaj can mean ?mates?, ?spouses?, or ?pairs?. In the same way, the word ins can refer to ?mankind?, or it can also refer to the ?common people? when it is used with the word jinn.

while I agree that the context controls the meaning the rest of the above is non sense bro, I?m sorry

Here is an example:

[114:1-6] : Say: I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind, The King of mankind, The god of mankind, From the evil of the sneaking whisperer, Who whispers into the chests of mankind, From among the jinn and ins.


In these verses, the word ins is used in the sense of ?mankind? in every occurrence, except the last. Translating ins by ?mankind? in the last verse makes no sense.

Sorry, what was that? Sounds like a case of desperation to me, anyway the last word of this sura is ?Nas? not ?Ins? while I agree both are the same I still can?t see your point

I have corrected my post. Thanks.

in fact the abive sura clearly shows that the Nas and Jinn are different races because Allah said at the end ?From among the jinna and Nas?.

Here is how I would translate it :
[114:4-6] : Who whispers into the chests of mankind, among the chiefs and commoners.

ok, thanks bro

Please note that God is never said to be The lord of mankind and jinnkind, but the lord of mankind only. So, the ins and jinn that are mentioned in [114:6] can only be 2 classes of human beings.

Mate, I?m sorry I hate wasting my time with this silly arguments, so the Quran didn?t tell us that Allah is the Lord of the chickens, would that mean for you that the chickens is  a class of humans? Or the chickens don?t have a God?

This is in line with the following verse:
[51:56] : I did not create the jinn and the ins except to serve Me.

Peace

and how about the chickens?

Salam bro and good night

This is a good remark, this will give me the opportunity to show that there are something very special with the jinns.

In [51:56], God said he has created the ins and the jinn only to serve him.
Why did God forget the chickens ?

Well, the response in this verse :

[7:179] : And We have committed to Hell many Jinn and humans; they had hearts with which they did not comprehend, and they had eyes with which they did not see, and they had ears with which they did not hear. They are like cattle; no, they are even more astray. These are the unaware ones.

In this verse, we learn again that many of the jinn and the ins will go to hell. Again, God forgot to tell us about the fate of the chickens !

Why ?
Simply because only the ins and the jinn have the possibility of rejecting God?s message. Only these 2 kind of beings can do that, simply because they are both humans, endowed with free will.

[32:13] : And if We had wished, We could have given every soul its guidance, but the word from Me has taken effect, that I will fill Hell with Jinn and humans all together.

This verse confirms it: the jinn and ins both have a soul, to which guidance can be sent. The chicken are never said to have a soul.

[6:130] : ?O you tribes of Jinn and humans, did not messengers come to you from amongst you and relate to you My revelations, and warn you of the meeting of this Day?? [...]

Again, we can notice that the unfortunate chickens were never sent chicken messengers...
Alas for them, there was but human messengers, sent to human people (both leaders and commoners).

Peace