Messages

[occult/covert]

Just because something, or someone is "hidden" (from view) doesn't mean it/he is a "genie" !!! Take the occult/covert minority of furtives/privateers -that own and run the corrupt monetary system- as an example.

[Sardar]

Salute @Sardar,

How does the article you recommend translate adj. جن  ?

Salam All Please go through the Joseph Islam's article on Jinn which clarifies all about Jinn

Thanks but, I'd rather learn directly from the clear, Arabian Qurān.

I recommend you do the same, and objectively use your G-D given mind to figure out things on your own, instead of blindly following/relying on other people's understandings.

سلام

There's no such a thing as "genies" in the Qurān.
That's a superstitious, persian/ajamean fairytale that traditionalists foist upon the textus !

Contrary to popular belief,
both الجن and الانس are mortal humans ...

The Qurān is a book of facts, not fiction.

Salute

"According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon."

-F.H. Cook, "The Terrestrial Plane"


"It is alleged by the learned that at a lunar eclipse the earth casts a shadow on the moon, by intercepting the light of the sun. The shadow, it is alleged, is circular, and as only a globe can cast a circular shadow, and as that shadow is cast by the earth, of course the earth is a globe. In fact, what better proof could any reasonable person require? 'Powerful reasoning,' says the dupe. Let us see. I have already cited a case where sun and moon have been seen with the moon eclipsed, and as the earth was not between, or they both could not have been seen, the shadow said to be on the moon could not possibly have been cast by the earth. But as refraction is charged with raising the moon above the horizon, when it is said to be really beneath, and the amount of refraction made to tally with what would be required to square the matter, let us see how refraction would act in regard to a shadow. Refraction can only exist where the object and the observer are in different densities. If a shilling be put in the bottom of a glass and observed there is no refraction. Refraction casts the image of the shilling UPWARDS, but a shadow always downwards. If a basin be taken and put near a light, so that the shadow will shorten inwards and DOWNWARDS; but if the rod is allowed to rest in the basin and water poured in, the rod will appear to be bent UPWARDS. This places the matter beyond dispute and proves that it is out of the range of possibility that the shadow said to be on the moon could be that of the earth."

-Thomas Winship, "Zetetic Cosmogeny" (78)


"Astronomers tell us that the Moon goes round the Earth in about 28 days. Well, we may see her making her journey round every day, if we make use of our eyes and these are about the best things we have to use. The Moon falls behind in her daily motion as compared with that of the Sun to the extent of one revolution in the time specified; but that is not making a revolution. Failing to go as fast as other bodies go in one direction does not constitute a going round in the opposite one - as the astronomers would have us believe! And, since all this absurdity has been rendered necessary for no other purpose than to help other absurdities along, it is clear that the astronomers are on the wrong track."

-William Carpenter, "100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe" (82)


Far from being a proof of heliocentricity, many facets of the Moon prove geocentricity and the flat earth. For example, though it appears to move East to West just like the Sun and everything else in the heavens, NASA says the Moon actually spins West to East at 10.3 mph while orbiting Earth at 2,288 mph, which combined with the Earth's supposed 1,038mph spin and 67,108 mph orbit around the Sun "coincidentally" results in all motions perfectly cancelling out making the Moon seem to move across the heavens with similar path and similar speed as the Sun while always only showing us one side of its surface, and perpetually hiding its "dark side."


"The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn't just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn't work. And it couldn't let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal, along with the change in speed, were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have any chance of mimicking reality."

-Bernard Brauer


"Astronomers have indulged in imagination to such a degree that the moon is now considered to be a solid, opaque spherical world, having mountains, valleys, lakes, or seas, volcanic craters, and other conditions analogous to the surface of the earth. So far has this fancy been carried that the whole visible disc has been mapped out, and special names given to its various peculiarities, as though they had been carefully observed, and actually measured by a party of terrestrial ordinance surveyors. All this has been done in direct opposition to the fact that whoever, for the first time, and without previous bias of mind, looks at the moon's surface through a powerful telescope, is puzzled to say what it is really like, or how to compare it with anything known to him. The comparison which may be made will depend upon the state of mind of the observer. It is well known that persons looking at the rough bark of a tree, or at the irregular lines or veins in certain kinds of marble and stone, or gazing at the red embers in a dull fire will, according to the degree of activity of the imagination, be able to see many different forms, even the outlines of animals and of human faces. It is in this way that persons may fancy that the moon's surface is broken up into hills and valleys, and other conditions such as are found on earth. But that anything really similar to the surface of our own world is anywhere visible upon the moon is altogether fallacious."

-Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!" (335)

If it locally illuminates like a lamp then how come it illuminates the moon as well? How do you explain half moons, crescents, and red moons?

The moon is completely self-luminescent, glowing with it's own unique light.

Seen from the earth, it looks almost identical in size to its antipode, the sun, which is a truly remarkable coincidence in the heliocentric model, considering how far apart, and how much smaller the moon is said to be compared to the sun (Sun is meant to be 865,374 miles in diameter and 92,955,807 miles from the Earth, the Moon 2,159 miles in diameter and 238,900 miles from Earth) !

To make the Moon fit the copernican, heliocentric model they reversed it's observed direction from East to West, to West to East, and changed its speed from about 64,000 miles per hour to about 2,200 miles an hour.

"They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses." -Marshall Hall

[n India it's dark over there but still light in the UK?]

If the Earth is flat then why is it that when I phone someone in the evening in India it's dark over there but still light in the UK?

The sun luminary is small in relation to the vast earth !

It acts like a lamp (spotlight) that shines downward, locally illuminating as it moves in circles around its axis, coursing on the ecliptic above the earth. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night !

Very simple.

[plz stick to the topic]

Can any heliocentrist here plz stick to the topic and advance at least one single qurānic passage in support of his/her imaginary "spinning/rotating ball-earth" ?!

افلا ينظرون ... الى الارض كيف سطحت
Do they not then look ... at the earth how was it flattened/leveled ?

The root سطح denoting flatness/levelnes is known in Arabic and well attested in the šemitic tree, like e.g., šṭḥ (ܫܛܥ) in Aramaic — adj. šṭīḥ (ܫܛܝܼܚܐ) means: flat — also, cf. šṭīḥūṯā (ܫܛܝܚܘܬܐ) = flatness, and šṭīḥāʔīṯ (ܫܛܝܼܚܿܐܝܬ) = in a flat way/form; ...

Natheless, the qurānic vb. suṭiḥat (سطحت) in 88:20 is oftentimes misconstructed by traditionalists as "spread" ! They try to hide earth's flatness/levelness (in the Qurān) from the foreign reader. This, i suspect is done either intentionally or subconsciously (out of bias, as most Adamites adhere to heliocentrism nowadays).

Earth's flatness/levelness is an OBSERVABLE living FACT backed up by ground-based experiments and high-altitude observational evidence. Hence, the quranic question: Do they not then LOOK ?! (افلا ينظرون)

[planate]

Hassan: Exactly. The Quran is not saying that the planet itself is flat. Besides, nearly all celestial solid bodies the size of planets are spherical. They have to be, because gravity pushes them into that configuration. They couldn't exist otherwise, with the forces of gravity at work.

Nil but speculation and wishful thinking !

Hicham9: I can see that you are never, ever going to be convinced. You have rejected all of our evidence and used numerous logical fallacies in your arguments. You still have no evidence to back up your claims. You provided pictures, but you yourself say that pictures can be edited and falsified. You told us the Quran supports geocentrism and a flat earth, but this was due to a mistranslation, which we corrected. You have no more ground to stand upon. From my understanding, this absurd "debate" is over, since you refuse to see the obvious. Well, we tried our best to convince you. We cannot do anything more.

What you fail to grasp is that i've been a brainwashed heliocentrist like yourself for over two decades, ergo. If you think you're the only who's been indoctrinated by the schooling system and has a tv at home, then think again! I did not divorce "heliocentrism" and endorse geocentrism out of a whim, my lady, but for lack of basis in reality.

Not only have i revealed a definite quranic passage in support of a planate earth (i still have more), but i've also provided genuine, undistorted photographs and stable raw footages capturing the stationary flat earth from a high altitude at wide angle. Furthermore, scientific experiments detect no curvature at ground level (See experiments conducted by Parallax in Earth Not a Globe, &c.), and mind you, the surface of every body of water is perfectly flat. (See experiment conducted by Alfred Russel Wallace and John Hampden, described in Schadewald's publications, &c.) !!!

سلام

[ʔarḍ]

Be ye my guests and turn a blind eye to most occurrences of ʔl-ʔarḍ in the Qurān (الارض in 88:20 included) whereof the term clearly denotes the earth as a whole !

To ye be your dyn/judgement, and to me mine.

سلام

[ارض]

What do you mean by "real Quranic term"? Furthermore, as evident by the following verse, the word earth (ard) is used to mean 'land'. So....

As already mentioned, QA: ارض functions the same as En: Earth, ie. in a general sense. It can denote the earth as a whole (used with def. article), or a land/rural area (indefinite).

In 88:20, the author used the definite form, hence the earth as a whole is the intended meaning.

The equivalent of QA: ارض in English is earth [ ea/ʔ (ا) r (ر) th (ض) ]
This is because like ارض, earth in english denotes the same meaning/s and functions in the same way.

Moreover, the quranic term for land in specific (ie. In contrast with the sea) is br (بر) - not ارض !

[ارض]

And as I said: The word "ard" means "surface of earth" or "land", not earth. Yes, the Quran says the land was leveled/spread out for us to use it. It does not say the earth itself was leveled.[/b] Why do you keep ignoring this fact? I should probably stop replying to you, but you are repeatedly ignoring the factual information that I'm giving you, and I can't let that go unnoticed.

Correction.

The equivalent of QA: ارض in English is earth [ ea/ʔ (ا) r (ر) th (ض) ]
This is because like ارض, earth in english denotes the same meaning/s and functions in the same way.

Moreover, the quranic term for land in specific (ie. In contrast with the sea) is br (بر) - not ارض !

Hope this helps.

سلام

[flattened/leveled]

افلا ينظرون ... الى الارض كيف سطحت
Do they not then look ... at the earth how was it flattened/leveled ?

The root سطح denoting flatness/levelnes is known in Arabic and well attested in the šemitic tree, like e.g., šṭḥ (ܫܛܥ) in Aramaic — adj. šṭīḥ (ܫܛܝܼܚܐ) means: flat — also, cf. šṭīḥūṯā (ܫܛܝܚܘܬܐ) = flatness, and šṭīḥāʔīṯ (ܫܛܝܼܚܿܐܝܬ) = in a flat way/form; ...

Natheless, the qurānic vb. suṭiḥat (سطحت) in 88:20 is oftentimes misconstructed by traditionalists as "spread" ! They try to hide earth's flatness/levelness (in the Qurān) from the foreign reader. This, i suspect is done either intentionally or subconsciously (out of bias, as most Adamites adhere to heliocentrism nowadays).

Earth's flatness/levelness is an OBSERVABLE living FACT backed up by ground-based experiments and high-altitude observational evidence. Hence, the quranic question: Do they not then LOOK ?! (افلا ينظرون)

Hicham9, please start verifying and stop swallowing up everything the internet tells you.

I promise to stop aguing in favor of the truth (here), if you can actually stop whining like an immature child and stick to the topic at hand by actually providing at least one quranic passage in support of your inherited bubble.

We're not here to discuss andor believe what Mia666 WANTS us to discuss/believe !!!

Stick to the topic or spare me the irrelevant gibberish.

[I'm a native Arabic speaker and a linguist/Arabist by profession .]

First you say:
I'm a native Arabic speaker and a linguist/Arabist by profession .

Then you go on to claim,quote:
Too bad, the Quran's original language is neither MSA nor Classical Arabic, but "Nabatean" Aramaic !


Need I say more?

This is quote mining (contextomy), a lying tactic !

I said : I'm a native Arabic speaker and a linguist/Arabist by profession currently working on a quranic lexicon, still don't take my word for it. Look it up yourself.

Plz don't misquote me again !

But you omitted the part where I said "I have been studying Qoran for the last few years.

Your "study" depends on your level of aquaintance with the quranic tongue. And mind you, last time i checked, not even the very first word in the Quran (بسم) exist in the post-quranic Arabic you've allegedly been studying for a decade !

Reassess

سلام