QM Forum
The Quran => General Discussions => Topic started by: chadiga on May 29, 2012, 01:37:34 AM
-
Salam :)
I do not know if brother Joseph has written an article on this question, but I do not find it.
in 2.260 we learn the story of Abraham and the proof of the resurrection from the death. Now my question: is the story about four birds (interpretation from asad) or is it one bird and a quarter of this bird, which was distributed to the mountains?
means it is not in the original Arabic
.. 'ala kulli gabalin minhunna dschuzan? .. "
... on every mountain a part of them"...?
Thanks for the explanation.Peace
-
Salamun Alaikum Chadiga,
Please see the following post in the Q&A section to which I've responded when asked a similar question.
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=262.msg791#msg791
I hope it helps, God willing.
Regards,
Joseph.
-
Salam Alaikum,
I think we should refer to the exposition of Parwez. He has given the following exposition for the verse;
2:260 Each Nabi has been confronted with the problem of giving life to a dead nation. For instance, Abraham faced such a problem and said to Allah: “What is the process by which new life may be infused into a dead nation?”. Allah asked him: “Do you not believe that dead nations may receive new life?”. Abraham said: “I do believe but I would like to know by what process, so that I can undertake it with full confidence.” Allah explained the process to Abraham through an example. He said: “Take four untamed birds. At first they will seek to get away from you. Make them familiar with yourself gradually. This will bring about remarkable change in them. Even if you set them free and call to them, they will come to you swiftly.” This is how you must patiently reform those who rebel against your call and bring them close to yourself and make them understand and appreciate the Divine System. This is how they will receive “life.” Most certainly Allah is All-Mighty, Wise.
The above explanation is very much convincing due to the following reasons
1. The previous verse 2:259 mentions about giving life to dead قَالَ أَنَّىٰ يُحْيِي هَٰذِهِ اللَّهُ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهَا (qala anna yuhyee hathihi Allahu baAAda mawtiha - When will God restore it to life after its death?), which is specifically related to giving life to a dead nation, not givin life to a dead being. Verse 2:260 also mentions about giving life to dead رَبِّ أَرِنِي كَيْفَ تُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ - (rabbi arinee kayfa tuhyee almawta - show me how to give life to dead), which must be connected to the discussion in the previous verse as pointed out by Parwez.
2. Prophet Ibrahim would not ask Allah to show him how to give life to a dead being, especially while directly communicating with Allah. He will not ask such a silly question. It is like he is telling Allah his heart is not fully convinced about life after death, such a question is impossible from a prophet's mouth. If such a question is asked by ordinary people we can understand that.
3. Nowhere in the verse it is mentioned cutting the birds into pieces, it is just an interpretation.
4. Allah's request to Moses to take four birds and فَصُرْهُنَّ إِلَيْكَ fasurhunna ilayka (tame them) is very important. If the purpose was to show to Moses how to give life after cutting the birds into pieces, it is not necessary to tame them or make them feel familiar to Ibrahim. Allah could have shown him this miracle without taming the birds.
5. If the purpose was to show Ibrahim how to give life to a dead person, Allah could have selected any dead person and give life to him.
6. The question was specific "how to give life", if it was about how to give life to a dead being, even the example (which is interpreted to mean cutting the birds into pieces and giving life) does not teach "how to give life".
7. It is also important whether prophet Ibrahim did comply with the direction in the verse as per the meaning of the verse traditionally understood (to get fully convinced about life after death!)
There are some of the logical reasons to prove that the issue was not giving life to a dead being, but the issue was connected to give life to a nation, which was the primary duty of prophet Ibrahim. Allah was teaching a great principle using parable of birds, in a couple of sentences. The message hidden in this verse must be taken for a research topic. By the way, the character of our prophet must be understood in this context. About our prophet Allah says "If you were severe or hardhearted, they would have broken away from you' (3: 159). This was the message Allah was teaching prophet Ibrahim, how to give life to a dead nation through making people get attached to him by mingling with them, sharing their sorrows and problems, giving helping hand to them, forgiving their sins, etc Once we have the confidence and trust of the people, we can make remarkable change in society.
-
Salamun Alaikum Optimist.
Thank for sharing your thoughts. Please see my academic contentions with your presentation. I will look forward to your rebuttals to my contentions with a view to understand this topic deeper.
CONTENTIONS:
1 - When a parable is cited, it is usually cited to elucidate a central theme. Parables are not cited to support each other. So if I make a statement X, I will use parable Y and Z to explain 'X'. The central argument ‘X’ is not found in the previous verse 2:259 as you seem to suggest.
Verse 2:259 and verse 2:260 are only 'parables' (‘Y’ and ‘Z’) which support the theme which is found in verse 2:258 (‘X). Verse 2:260 is not used to support 2:259 directly.
The central theme is established in verse 2:258 where God's majesty and sovereignty was contested by a disbeliever along with God's ability to give life and death only. Verse 2:258 by itself has nothing to do with a nation.
Therefore, I cannot support the central premise of your argument which I feel is unwarranted as is Parwez's interpolation.
2 - What Prophet Abraham would and would not ‘ask’ and the appropriateness underlying it is not a judgment call for us to make. We can only establish testimony based on the evidence provided clearly by the Quran. If the Quran says X happened or Y said this, then as believers we believe that X happened and Y said it.
The comment that Prophet Abraham's question would otherwise appear to be 'silly' is subjective and unwarranted. If this line of subjectivity is followed, other subjective questions can also be asked. For example: why did the Prophet Muhammad fear men when he should have rather feared God (33:37)? One could argue whether the Prophet should have known better? Do we now change the Arabic because the Prophet should have known better? Why did the Prophet make something unlawful when he had no authority to do so (66:1)? Why did he frown and turn away (80:1)? Why did Prophet Yunus abandon his people for a laden ship? The list can continue.
Prophetic actions and sayings (whatever they are) are a matter between them and God. They have been imparted for us to extract wisdom, not to deny them. We can only provide testimony on what is being narrated to us by God.
3 - The 'portioning' of the birds is strongly implied by the Arabic. The Arabic of 2:260 clearly imparts the instruction to take four of the birds (arba'atan mina-tayri). 'kulli jabalin' is clearly a reference to 'each mountain'. So the inference would be to take four birds to four separate mountains and then to put a 'juz' on each of them. A 'juz' is basically a part or a portion of something. As the theme of the verse is resurrection and juz strongly suggests parts of the bird, hence it is usual to find renderings which mention cut pieces of the bird.
Please can you provide me strong evidence from the Arabic of verse 2:260 and the Quran alone, which clearly supports a better alternative explanation.
4 - The Arabic word 'fasur' from the verb 'sara' means to 'incline' or to ‘lean’ something or to twist or turn something to get them to do what you want. Therefore, in this context it means to incline or to summon towards oneself. This would be necessary if they were to be summoned from different places after they have been portioned 'juz'. Otherwise why would they come towards him?
Similarly, on the Day of Reckoning, everything in the Universe will be summoned by God.
5 - Please can you provide me clear evidence based on the verses which proves that the purpose of the exercise was to simply show Prophet Abraham how God gives life to a dead person?
The 'purpose' was established in verse 2:259 to show God's sovereignty and how He with His majesty, is able to do all things including resurrecting the dead on the Day of Judgment.
6 - Your assertion seems to be linked with point (5). If I cut something and it forms and comes back to life, what have I proven?
7 - I am not sure what point you are trying to make with this. Please elaborate.
At present, I respectfully find no cogent argument that provides clear evidence that verse 2:260 has anything to with bringing nations to life. I humbly feel such a premise is based on the faulty assumption that the two parables in 2:259 and 2:260 are linked with each other, rather than being linked by a common theme which is established in 2:258. Therefore, 2:260 has nothing to do with 'nations'.
I look forward to your response.
Regards,
Joseph.
-
Wassalam,
Borther Joseph Islam, let us focus our attention to the Arabic words;
The Arabic of 2:260 contains instruction to take four birds (arba'atan mina-tayri), the word, mina (from) denotes that it can be from four different categories of birds. And then the command to fasurhunna ilayka “فَصُرْهُنَّ إِلَيْكَ. This is very important. You have said the Arabic word 'fasur' from the verb 'sara' means to 'incline' or to ‘lean’ something or to twist or turn something to get them to do what you want. Yes, to get to do what we want. That is why Usfur sawwar means the bird which comes at a call: as siwaar means a herd of cattle: (which follows the shepherd’s call), in the context of the verse 2:260 means familiarize these birds with yourself: make them your pets: make them so familiar that they come to you when called.
As you said 'kulli jabalin' is clearly a reference to 'each mountain'. The inference is; you put them, a part of them, at any mountain. It is only just an interpretation that 'juz' on each of them refers to "pieces of birds" and in fact juz is the only word in the whole of the ayat that someone can conveniently interpret to mean pieces of birds, whereas “minhunna juzhan” can very clearly refers to 'from the four birds a part', ie. to put any bird (whether one or more as per his wish) on any mountain. There is no inference anywhere to cut the birds into pieces and if at all there was any instruction to cut the birds into pieces it would have been mentioned before the word “minhunna”. Before the instruction "to take from them" a part, the only instruction provided was fasurhunna ilayka which I explained above. The instruction as a whole refers to taking four birds and tame them (fasurhunna ilayka) and thereafter putثُمَّ اجْعَلْ 'from the four birds a part' (minhunna juzhan) at different mountains.
I agree with you the context of verse 2:258 is resurrection, but closely check verse 2:259, the discussion changes from individual’s life and death to resurrection of a nation from its death. The discussion is on a ruined city and its resurrection from death. Notice the question in the verse, how can the devastated, ruined city will be bought (ever) to life, after its death? In this context we should understand the next verse 2:260 how each Nabi has been confronted with the problem of giving life to a dead nation and a guidnace is mentioned from story of Ibrahim.
-
Salam all together
i found a interesting statement in the NT
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die , it abideth alone: but if it die , it bringeth forth much fruit. 25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. 26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am , there shall also my servant be : if any man serve me, him will my Father honour .
John 12:24
peace :)
-
Wassalam,
Borther Joseph Islam, let us focus our attention to the Arabic words;
The Arabic of 2:260 contains instruction to take four birds (arba'atan mina-tayri), the word, mina (from) denotes that it can be from four different categories of birds. And then the command to fasurhunna ilayka “فَصُرْهُنَّ إِلَيْكَ. This is very important. You have said the Arabic word 'fasur' from the verb 'sara' means to 'incline' or to ‘lean’ something or to twist or turn something to get them to do what you want. Yes, to get to do what we want. That is why Usfur sawwar means the bird which comes at a call: as siwaar means a herd of cattle: (which follows the shepherd’s call), in the context of the verse 2:260 means familiarize these birds with yourself: make them your pets: make them so familiar that they come to you when called.
As you said 'kulli jabalin' is clearly a reference to 'each mountain'. The inference is; you put them, a part of them, at any mountain. It is only just an interpretation that 'juz' on each of them refers to "pieces of birds" and in fact juz is the only word in the whole of the ayat that someone can conveniently interpret to mean pieces of birds, whereas “minhunna juzhan” can very clearly refers to 'from the four birds a part', ie. to put any bird (whether one or more as per his wish) on any mountain. There is no inference anywhere to cut the birds into pieces and if at all there was any instruction to cut the birds into pieces it would have been mentioned before the word “minhunna”. Before the instruction "to take from them" a part, the only instruction provided was fasurhunna ilayka which I explained above. The instruction as a whole refers to taking four birds and tame them (fasurhunna ilayka) and thereafter putثُمَّ اجْعَلْ 'from the four birds a part' (minhunna juzhan) at different mountains.
I agree with you the context of verse 2:258 is resurrection, but closely check verse 2:259, the discussion changes from individual’s life and death to resurrection of a nation from its death. The discussion is on a ruined city and its resurrection from death. Notice the question in the verse, how can the devastated, ruined city will be bought (ever) to life, after its death? In this context we should understand the next verse 2:260 how each Nabi has been confronted with the problem of giving life to a dead nation and a guidnace is mentioned from story of Ibrahim.
Salamun Alaikum Optimist :)
RESURRECTION
With regards verse 2:259, you have agreed with me that the theme is 'resurrection' yet you have kindly asked me to look at verse 2:259 which is a parable to support the central theme of resurrection. The parable in verse 2:259 of the nation is not itself the theme. I made my contention with regards this point absolutely clear in my post above and in paragraph titled [1].
Please can you provide me clear evidence that the theme of which the parables found in verses 2:259 and 2:260 are elucidating is to 'revive nations'. The parables themselves cannot be used to establish the theme as they are only elucidating the theme of resurrection. Such an assertion in my humble opinion would be unacceptable. They can only provide examples of a central theme not become the theme themselves.
FOUR BIRDS - QUALIFIED
I would have to strongly disagree with you as the matter of the word 'juz' is not simply one of a mere interpretation. Rather, it is a very strong interpretation suggested by the clear Arabic.
The primary meaning of ‘Juz’ in Arabic is the act of cutting or cutting off. Please see any authoritative lexicon for yourself.
The 'Juz' (definition - to cut, break off into parts or in portions) in my humble opinion, does not describe a part from a group (i.e. 1 or x birds from 4), especially when the group has been qualified into parts / numbers already (4 birds).
Rather, from a Quran's perspective, the noun 'juz' inherently means a portion or part of an entity or a portion or part of an unqualified group.
So as an analogy (from a Quran's perspective), I would not say "Here are 12 cats. Can you put a portion from them in the car". This would sound nonsensical and the word 'portion / part / juz' would never be used in this context as it would imply a part of a cat as the cats have already been 'qualified' into numbers. I would rather say for example "can you put 3 cats, 8 cats or 9 cats etc in the car" as they have already been qualified as 12 cats.
However, if I said 'here are cats, please can you put a portion of them in the car", this would make sense as the unqualified group is now the complete entity (cats) of which the 'portion / juz' is a part. In this case, any number of cats can be put in the car.
This is supported by examples from the Quran.
015:044
"To it are seven gates: for each of those gates is a portion (Arabic: min-hum juz'un) assigned"
Here, the gates have been qualified into different gates - numbers / amounts (qualified) and each gate has a 'portion' (juz) assigned. The gate itself is not the portion (juz).
043.015
"But they attribute a portion (juz'an) from His slaves! ..."
The slaves here are an unqualified group (any number), like the group of cats. So the 'juz' is usable in this context.
Similarly, the Quran does not say 'take any birds and put a portion of them on the mountains'. It says take '4' birds (qualified) and put a 'portion' of them on the mountains.
There is a difference.
I hope you can see my perspective.
Regards,
Joseph.
-
Assalamu alaikum,
I will say, your explanation, once we qualify a group into a specific number, we cannot use the word Juzan is not at all convincing. Imagine, we went together for shopping and you purchased 10 apples what does it mean when I ask you to give me a portion? Ok I can request you a specific number of apples. But when I request you a portion, it means it is your choice to decide on the number of apples. You cannot say my question is a nonsense question. Also, for instance, I tell you to take this 100 coconuts as gift from me and give a portion to my servant, here also I am giving you the choice to decide the number of coconuts. You can not insist that I should mention the number of coconut to be given to the servant. In the same way, here the choice is for prophet Ibrahim to decide on the number of birds and the mountain (notice even the mountain is not specific, “every mountain”). Therefore, in the context of the verses, it was not required to specify the number of birds and mountain. Of course Allah could have specified to put one bird on a specific mountain and another bird in another mountain, etc, which is actually not at all required (it would have sound bizarre if he was instructed something like this)
Also, the question you have not yet answered is this. Where is the instruction to cut the birds into pieces other than the word juzan you claim and trying to interpret to refer to pieces of birds. It is said Min hunna juzan (from them a portion) what does “hunna” here refers to? It clearly refers to birds. Nowhere before this word cutting the birds into pieces mentioned. You have also not given a proper and fair explanation for Fasurhunna, which I explained clearly what it means.
When a parable is cited, it is usually cited to elucidate a central theme. Parables are not cited to support each other. So if I make a statement X, I will use parable Y and Z to explain 'X'. The central argument ‘X’ is not found in the previous verse 2:259 as you seem to suggest.
In verse 2:259, the central t theme is resurrection of a nation from dead. The central theme is how a devastated, ruined city will be bought (ever) to life, after its death. This is the question which is asked in the beginning of the verse. Then the resurrection of the city after death like situation for a 100 years is explained through a parable. I prefer the explanation of parwez. I quote “This issue as is known in history, after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the Bani-Isr’ael lived in captivity for about a hundred years. Then they were liberated and re-established in Jerusalem. This story has been narrated in the Quran symbolically”. Therefore, the central theme is not giving life to dead being, but giving life to a dead nation which is symbolically explained through a parable.
By the way, can you make a comment on my post in the following thread? I would like to know you further thoughts after reading my comments (Courtesy of course Parwez :)). http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=197.0
-
Salamun Alaikum Optimist,
With respect, my purpose is not to convince you. My purpose is to provide an argument based on the Quran and I elucidated my claims about qualification with two verses of the Quran citing examples (15:44, 43:15).
The word in Arabic is not 'portion', it is 'Juz'. They are not identical terms. My examples about cats was merely to give you an analogy in English and support my convictions established by the usage of 'juz' elsewhere in the Quran (15:44, 43:15). So what we may say about apples or coconuts in English in the 21st century is mute in the context of the Quranic usage of the word 'juz'.
Whether you find it convincing or not is entirely your prerogative :) Given the verse and the inherent meaning of 'Juz' in the context used, I find this to be the best explanation.
You have provided me no clear evidence why 'juz' implying cut is not the best explanation given the theme is resurrection and despite the Arabic words primary meaning to cut. Your only recourse is to suggest it means to resurrect nations based on 2:259 which is being contested as the parable in 2:260 is not explaining the parable in 2:259.
With respect, you keep missing this point about the parable. You are consistently citing 2:259 to establish the theme of the parables in 2:259 and 2:260. The theme of the parable is set in 2:258 which talks about general resurrection. Verse 2:259 and 2:260 are just separate parables explaining the theme of resurrection in two different ways.
It is clear to me from the posts hitherto, that you are going to support Parwez's arguments which I am happy to critically evaluate on this forum only if time permits (God willing). However, we are seeking best arguments and thus far you have given me no clear reason why 'resurrection of nations' is the theme and not 'resurrection' alone.
If you do not address this specific point further, please accept my post the last on this matter as I will sadly see no value in continuing this discourse with you on this topic.
As to your request for my comments on another thread, I will take a look in due course, time permitting God willing. Please appreciate, that this forum is for everyone to participate and in their own time.
With regards 'fasur', I have already explained what it means. Please see: Reply #3 and section 4 of this thread. However, please can you provide evidence from notable lexicon authorities for your definition that "siwaar means a herd of cattle: (which follows the shepherd’s call)". In my understanding of Arabic, suwar is plural of 'soorah' which is used in the Quran to signify a form or shape. (40:64, 64:3, 82:8'). It is also used in Arabic for a sparrow that answers or responds to a call.
I have discussed the root of this word in more detail in another article:
THE TRUMPET IS BLOWN OR IS IT?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/the%20trumpet%20is%20blown%20or%20is%20it%20FM3.htm
Regards.
Joseph. :)
-
4 - The Arabic word 'fasur' from the verb 'sara' means to 'incline' or to ‘lean’ something or to twist or turn something to get them to do what you want. Therefore, in this context it means to incline or to summon towards oneself. This would be necessary if they were to be summoned from different places after they have been portioned 'juz'. Otherwise why would they come towards him?
Similarly, on the Day of Reckoning, everything in the Universe will be summoned by God.
Assalam alaikum,
Kindly consider our discussion as positive. I do not want to impose my views on you just like you do not want to impose your views on me. I touch my heart and tell you I am open to accepting your views if you can convince me. I never blindly accept the views of any scholars. That is why regarding the miracles issue I told you I can not answer your comments at the moment. I am fully aware I am answerable to Allah for whatever posts I make here. I can not even imagine misrepresenting anything. No scholar is going to rescue me from Allah's questioning.
Well, earlier I did not make any specific comment on this. Since you have asked me to check this comment, I want to tell you the followings.
I find the above explanation very strange. I agree with you the Arabic word 'fasur' from the verb 'sara' means to 'incline' or to ‘lean’ something or to twist or turn something to get them to do what you want. You yourself has mentioned suwar is used in Arabic for a sparrow that answers or responds to a call. I had pointed out this meaning in my post. So the contexual meaning you can not deny that fasurhunna means to make them so familiar that they come to us when called. In other words, make them "incline" or "lean" towards us so that we can get them to do what we want (initially when we take birds they will be hesistant to incline towards us, and this shows the reason for the command fasurhunna). The point is very clear.
However, you are here saying that the contexual meaning is; "in this context it means to incline or to summon towards oneself". You further said "this would be necessary if they were to be summoned from different places after they have been portioned 'juz'." My question is; how come they were to be summoned from different places after they haved been cut into pieces? After prophet Ibrahim took the birds, they are with him. If he had cut the four birds into pieces all the pieces of birds are still with him. Are suggesting that the instruction for "fasurhunna ilayka" is after cutting the birds into pieces? This is quite strange. I am totally unable to understand what surhunna you are here referring to. Are you referring to collecting the pieces of birds? Then you will spoil the meaning of the word fasurhunna. The issue of summoning is mentioned only after putting them on the mountains.
With respect, my purpose is not to convince you. My purpose is to provide an argument based on the Quran and I elucidated my claims about qualification with two verses of the Quran citing examples (15:44, 43:15)
With all respet to you, I politely disagree with your connecting verse 2.260 with 15:44 & 43:15 and making a case. You may compare Verse 43:15 "And they assign to Him a part of His servants (as His children)" وَجَعَلُوا لَهُ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ جُزْءًا with Minhunna Juzhan in 2.260 (from them a part). Here the usage minhibadihi juzhan and minhunna juzhan actually support my case. I can not find any logic in your arguement (explained to me through the example of the cats) that since the birds are catergoried as four birds (and assuming my case the birds are not cut into pieces), it is nonsensible to mention "from them a part". I have even verified with a few and asked them if we assume the birds are not cut into pieces, whether there is a gramatical error in the usage "minhunna juzhan" to denote "from the birds a part" and they told me there is no gramatical error. The verse you pointed out "min hibadihi juzhan" for sure can not refer to pieces of Allah's servants. Suppose imagine I have several grocery shops and I purchased 1000 pens and I requested my staff to put a part of them in every shops. The only thing is that I am not specifying the number and my staff has the discretion to decide the number. Your are implying by the example if Allah was referring to 4 birds, Allah would be mentioning "put from them one, (two or three, etc) on every mountain". Not really convincing, considering also the instruction for fasurhunna after taking four birds. Please note, after the instruction for fasurhunna the immediate instruction is ثُمَّ اجْعَلْ 'thereafter' put from them a portion at every mountain", no killing and cutting the birds into pieces is mentioned. If cutting the birds into pieces was instructed it would have been mentioned after fasurhunna. Actually fasurhunna loses its meaning if the birds are needed to be cut into pieces after they are caught.
Please take my comments positively. I have started reading many of your posts here and I liked lot of your comments. Please no harsh thoughts about me. I am only politely disagreeing with you.
Assalamu alaikum
-
Salamun Alaikum Optimist.
Thank you for your very pleasant demeanour in your post which I truly respect :)
The point of the parable in 2:260 is to show Prophet Abraham how God resurrects from the dead. This is clear from the question at the start "Show me, Lord, how You will raise the dead". So someone or something has to die in verse 2:260 for the parable to work. There is no use connecting 2:260 with verse 2:259 as verse 2:260 is a separate parable.
So my question is: So how do the birds die?
If the birds do not die, then there is no parable. Please try to understand my contention with your argument.
(1) He took four birds
(2) Made the birds respond to his call
(3) Put a portion / part 'Juz' of them on each mountain top / hill
(4) Then called them back
(5) They responded and came back to him
So how does this prove resurrection? Clearly between [2] and [3] there is an implied action. Otherwise, how do the birds die?
Remember, this is a parable that stands alone to prove resurrection.
Regards,
Joseph.
-
4I touch my heart and tell you I am open to accepting your views if you can convince me. I never blindly accept the views of any scholars. That is why regarding the miracles issue I told you I can not answer your comments at the moment. I am fully aware I am answerable to Allah for whatever posts I make here. I can not even imagine misrepresenting anything. No scholar is going to rescue me from Allah's questioning.
On a side note, I wanted to point out this great sentiment MashAllah of Optimist's which we should all (including me first) be conscious of at all times. We should always be receptive to a better argument and not follow blindly the views of anyone. In the end, we are all answerable to God alone. Reminders like this are good for everyone.
017.036
"And do not follow that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed! the hearing and the sight and the heart - of each of these you will be questioned"
I felt it was worth pointing out separately. Thanks for sharing.
Peace.
-
Assalamu alaikum,
Thank for your above two posts. Let me ask you only one question;
What is the relevance of the discussion about a ruined city in verse 2.259 and the exclamation how come this ruined and destroyed city could be ever resurrected to life again after its death?
I look forward to your answer before making any further comments
Kind regards
-
Salamun Alaikum Optimist,
The parable attempts to show through the narrative one of the ways God resurrects from the dead.
To show this example to an individual before the Day of Judgment, something out of the ordinary must have to happen. Sleeping for a 100 years is not ordinary (2:259), neither is sleeping for an extended number of years as in the narratives of Surah Kahf, ordinary. These are extraordinary events.
Now if:
[A] One does not want to accept that God can temporarily suspend / alter / interfere with the laws He himself has created as and when 'He so wills' to manifest a particular truth, then not only do we deny God's attributes such as "He does what He wills", "He will not be questioned as to that which He does", "When He decrees a matter, He only says "BE!" and is" we also limit God's capacity and have to find imaginative ways to avoid the literal testimony of the Quran and turn it into riddles to explain it.
Dear brother, as I trust you will agree, turning the Quran into riddles or attempting semantic gymnastics (as I have noted some others do) to explain a literal narrative of the Quran goes against its own testimony that the 'Quran has no crookedness" (18:1) and that it is easy to understand.
If we simply accept that [A] is possible and that God can 'suspend' His laws IF he so Wills, then literal interpretations become easier.
In my humble opinion, this is the crux of the matter. Some just do not want to accept [A].
Now as I accept [A], I accept the clear literal testimony of the Arabic words revealed by God that:
(i) Man passed by a town in ruins
(ii) He questioned how any of what he saw could be raised again (a question of resurrection - which is the central theme which the parable attempts to elucidate)
(iii) He was then put to sleep for a 100 years [extraordinary event]
(iv) He was awoken [extraordinary event]
(v) He questioned to himself how long he had slept
(v) To make him realise how long he had slept, he was inclined to look at his food and drink which were fresh and the ass which were by now bones (due to the 100 years).
If he could be awoken after such an unnatural period of time, then God can clearly resurrect the dead. If there was nothing extraordinary in the events, then the 'extra ordinary question regarding resurrection' becomes futile.
Now I have elaborated this literal understanding in another thread. Please see:
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=257.0
...and reply #11.
However, I think the most important question is:
Are we willing to accept [A] or not? If we are not, then I humbly feel there is no point of continuing this discussion as on this point, you and I will be arguing from mutually exclusive theological positions.
With utmost respect,
Joseph.
-
Now if:
[A] One does not want to accept that God can temporarily suspend / alter / interfere with the laws He himself has created as and when 'He so wills' to manifest a particular truth, then not only do we deny God's attributes such as "He does what He wills", "He will not be questioned as to that which He does", "When He decrees a matter, He only says "BE!" and is" we also limit God's capacity and have to find imaginative ways to avoid the literal testimony of the Quran and turn it into riddles to explain it.
Dear brother, as I trust you will agree, turning the Quran into riddles or attempting semantic gymnastics (as I have noted some others do) to explain a literal narrative of the Quran goes against its own testimony that the 'Quran has no crookedness" (18:1) and that it is easy to understand.
If we simply accept that [A] is possible and that God can 'suspend' His laws IF he so Wills, then literal interpretations become easier.
In my humble opinion, this is the crux of the matter. Some just do not want to accept [A].
However, I think the most important question is:
Are we willing to accept [A] or not? If we are not, then I humbly feel there is no point of continuing this discussion as on this point, you and I will be arguing from mutually exclusive theological positions.
With utmost respect,
Joseph.
Wa alaikumussalam,
This is a very interesting dicussion. Brother, can you read the following link related this issue and provide me your comments (I am patient to wait if you need time). I believe it will a learning process for me and you might be coming across with a different analysis to make a scrutiny. Thank you for your patience. This is from Kitabu taqdeer by parwez and there are actually different chapters relevant, but I am requesting you at the moment only this chapter.
http://www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/kt/kt_10.htm
Thanks & kind regards
Allah bless you
-
Dear Friends, Salam
The issue seems to be whether Allah sticks to His Ways/Laws (By choice) or not. Does He chooses, sometimes, to change laws of nature?
Parwez and Dr. Shabbir seem to suggest that He does not (He can but chooses not to) based on an ayah or two which says the we will not find Allah Changing His Ways. Some suggest read in context, it means He does not changes His ways when dealing with the rise and fall of nations and not laws of nature.
This creates many issues with interpretation like the topic being discussed here, birth of Jesus. Jesus speaking from the cradle, Jesus giving life and death by Allah's leave. Jesus breathing a soul into a clay bird and releasing it in air, Moses's encounter with the magicians in Pharoes' court and his stick swallowng up their snakes. Ants and birds talking in the story of Solomon. A few incidences regarding the Queen Sheba story, etc. etc.
We also repeatedly read about the Mushriks demanding a Miracle which is not granted but the possiblity of miracles is not denied either. They were told that producing miracles in the past did not work for some who are predisposed towards unbelief. If fact we read that Allah warns them if a Miracle was to be granted and if the Mushriks still did not believe they would not be given a chance to repent (if I remember the verse correctly).
It is important, therefore, as Br Joseph suggested to further explore whether Allah uses miracles to advance His Deen or not or rather before the blessed Muhammad, whether, based on the Bible as well, He used Miracles to advance His Deen. The New Testament is full of marvellous miracles!!
Regards
-
Salaam,
I am really pleased to read your comment regarding miracles. When looking at the verses about 'miracles' as a whole, we cannot simply put it down to allegory.
We must be open minded and not interpret things the way we want to rationalise them. In my opinion there are so many verses describing miracles, that they cannot simply be overlooked.
You mention the verses where the people demand miracles as proof of God's existence and also the Quran mentions that from the time of prophet Muhammed ( pbuh) there will be no more miracles because when God had shown the previous generations, they still disbelieved
This confirms the fact that miracles existed. It is a great shame then when I see the translations by G.Parvez and Shabbir.
They have had to go to great lengths in order to rephrase the verses and to present them as non miracles.
Even in the case of prophet Jesus, they deny his miraculous conception. In this case I note that Shabbir decides to promote the fact that Joseph is the biological father.This purely because he does not believe in miracles.
In my view, it is outrageous for someone who claims to explain the Quran from within itself, to start inserting external references into the text only when it supports his ideology.
Just something to think about...
-
Dear Truth Seeker, I see your point; There is room for allegory in the Qur'an but it must be used with wisdom.
The other day, upon asking the possiblity of Miracles, I received the following reply which I would like to include in our discussion:
".....Please ponder over implication of verses 6:101 and 10:64 read together.
Mohsin Khan: 6:100 .....
and they attribute falsely without knowledge sons and daughters to Him.
Be He Glorified and Exalted above all that (evil) they attribute to Him.
Mohsin Khan: 6:101 He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth.
How can He have children when He has no wife?
He created all things and He is the All-Knower of everything .
Transliteration 10:64 ... la tabdeela likalimati Allahi .....
Mohsin Khan: 10:64 ...... No change can there be in the Words of Allah. ......
Now, see what above verses telling us............?"
The Brother who replied wants to know how can Jesus be born without a father when Allah is highlighting a law here through a question to the Mushriks?
Those opposing miracles assert that the word Mujiza means an incident that renders the intellect "Aajiz" (unable to comprehend). Furhter, they say, Allah wants us to accept his deen based on logic and intellect and not by confounding it. Okay, that is true started with the blessed Muhammad. What about His dealings through Messengers before Muhammad?
Kindly comment. Thanks.
-
Dear brother Mubashir,
Salamun Alaikum.
Just a few sentiments if I may indulge with respect …
If God does not change a 'system', then what did God stop doing in the following verse which He did before?
Something was clearly stopped – What was it?
017:059
"And We refrain from sending signs / miracles (Arabic: bil-ayati), only because the former generations treated them as false: We sent the she-camel to the Thamud to open their eyes, but they treated her wrongfully: We only send the signs by way of a warning"
This verse in one single stroke in my opinion, puts an end to the claims of those that deny portents ever being received by communities before Prophet Muhammad. Something 'was' clearly stopped by God as the previous people denied it. It cannot be 'verses' as the Quran came with verses.
What was sent to the communities before which they denied and which God stopped from sending any more? This is a simple question.
To anyone who clearly understands Arabic, the 'text' is clear. God says "wama mana'ana an nursila bil-ayati illa .." People can make up their own translations and interpolations all day long, but no one on Earth can change clear Arabic and sincere believers bear clear witness to God’s words.
6:101 is clearly negating the claim in 6:100 i.e. How can God have sons and daughters when he has no consort? This has nothing to do with God's ability to suspend laws if He so wills! He doesn't beget - Yes, but if he wants a man to be born of a mother alone, He simply says 'kun'! This is no different from when he desired the creation of the first man, He simply said "Kun"! - and then the process simply began (3:59)
Furthermore, 10:64 talks about 'kalimati'. (i.e. that there is no changing (tabdeel) in the words of God). This once again has no connection with God's ability to suspend his laws if He so wills.
The simple question remains. What did God suspend in 17:59, if He does not alter His ways?
I hope this helps, God willing.
Joseph.
-
Salaam,
The people here are talking about attributing literal sons and daughters in the biological sense to God.
The response is that He is not like His creation.
Prophet Jesus (pbuh) had no father but was carried in the womb as any other child would be. The process of creation began when God simply willed it, as Joseph mentioned, similarly to when God began the creation of mankind.
If we take away the miraculous birth of Jesus, and say that he had a biological father, Mary's claim that no man has ever touched her would then be a lie.
-
Salam Br Joseph,
To remind us, what exactly was the sign relating to the she camel in 017:059?
Thanks.
-
Salam Br Joseph,
To remind us, what exactly was the sign relating to the she camel in 017:059?
Thanks.
Please see: 7:73-79, 26:155-157, 54:27-29, 11:63-68, 91:13
But let us go back to the fundamental questions.
- What did God stop / withhold / arrest / prevent / refrain / suspend (mana) in 17:59 going forward that He had sent to previous communities?
- How could God stop something he did before if He did not alter His ways?
With respect and as I'm sure you will appreciate, it is pointless in my humble opinion discussing peripheral matters if we cannot or do not address fundamentals.
Your brother in faith,
Joseph :)
-
Salamun alaikum,
Here is what Parwez has stated for the verses, though I have not yet fully understood the interpretation of parwez based on his views, taking into consideration also the question posted by brother Joseph Islam.
(17: 59) They say, O Rasool, that if you are truthful in your claim you should show them some visible proof of it. Nothing can hinder Allah from bringing forth such proof but history has shown that human beings who do not apply their reason seldom learn from such proofs. For instance, the people of Thamud had made an agreement with their Rasool that they would allow all animals to drink water from the springs. To see whether they honoured the agreement, a she-camel was marked for the purpose. Not only did they disregard their agreement but they ham-strung her and We do not send these signs for any other purpose than to convey a warning (7:77, 11:65, 26:155-156, 54:28-29, 91:11-15).
I am also curious to know what does it mean "We only send the signs by way of a warning"
-
Salam,
In connection with mircales performed by Jesus (as we know some people explains them as allegorical) I have some comments. Let me first quote the following verse;
Behold! the disciples, said: "O Jesus the son of Mary! can thy Lord send down to us a table set (with viands) from heaven?" Said Jesus: "Fear Allah, if ye have faith." They said: "We only wish to eat thereof and satisfy our hearts, and to know that thou hast indeed told us the truth; and that we ourselves may be witnesses to the miracle." Said Jesus the son of Mary: "O Allah our Lord! Send us from heaven a table set (with viands), that there may be for us - for the first and the last of us - a solemn festival and a sign from thee; and provide for our sustenance, for thou art the best Sustainer (of our needs)." Allah said: "I will send it down unto you: But if any of you after that resisteth faith, I will punish him with a penalty such as I have not inflicted on any one among all the peoples."(5:112)
I have the following questions/ comments;
1. Why Jesus was telling them initially to fear Allah and do not ask for any such miracle. Jesus is reported to have done more than big miracles like making a bird from clay and giving life to it, curing blind, etc. All these miracles would have been sufficient for his people “to satisfy their hearts"
2. The statement from Allah, “I will send it down to you, but if any of you after this disbelieves will be punished with punishment never inflicted on any of the peoples” is very important. Why does Allah punish them with a punishment never inflicted on any humanity? The issue here, I think, clearly implys that no humanity was given any such similar proofs, otherwise why they are singled out with a warning of punishment never inflicted on anyone. If Allah had already shown such similar miracles to others (including the other equalent and greater miracles by Jesus) no such warning need to have been given. It is my thinking.
3. It is not mentioned in the verse whether Allah had indeed given them the table of food as requested. There is a possibility that after the warning about such severe punishment, the disciples Backtracked from the request.
I am not trying to impose any view here. I am just sharing some thoughts. I look forward others views. It will help us to go more deep into the meaning of the verses in the Quran.
Alhamdulillah always
-
Salaam,
The verse regarding sending signs by way of warning to my mind conveys the fact that God sends messengers and prophets to a community conveying the message and also accompanies them with 'signs' to make things crystal clear. Some signs are in the form of miracles and others are used to warn people before they will be ultimately punished.
What we have seen from the past, is that so many people have disbelieved regardless of the message being made clear so certain signs are presented as warnings.
The she camel was one of them. When the people transgressed, they disregarded the warning and thereafter met their end.
-
Thanks....
I also noticed another verse;
“And those who have no knowledge say, 'Why does God not speak to us, or a Sign come to us direct?' Likewise said those before them what was similar to their saying. Their hearts are all alike. We have certainly made the Signs plain for a people who firmly believe.” (2:118)
Here Allah says demand for miracles had been made in the past by people with a similar mentality, howevever, those who understand the nature of Revelation do not make such a demand and a sign/ miracle is not associated with revelation....I feel like there are lot of hidden meanings.
-
Dear Friends, Thanks for your input.
for those of us who are mere students, this issue of interpretation becomes extremely confusing. Consider what is going on:
Two different groups, having extensive knowledge of Arabic differing over this issue of Miracles !!
What is a common man supposed to do?
That leads me to another major point I have with religion:
When a Prophet is alive, all such matters are resolved by an authority sent by Allah. When the Prophet is no longer with us within a few years, disputes over interpretation emerge and then conflict starts. Take the differences over Imamat vs Khilafat dispute between Shias and Sunnis. Each argue that their position is right. Now, with the Prophet no longer around what this leads to is division and it's consequences.
Question is when such major disputes arise, how are we to resolve them with no Divine Interpreter present. Sure we have the Qur'an but people differ over it's meaning as well!!
Sometimes, in such situations one wishes that another Messenger arrives and settles such disputes uniting the Ummah. Since that is no longer the case what are we supposed to do? Differ with grace and agree to disagree? In certain matters not vital for peace we can do so but how about sectarian conflicts. Look what is going on in Syria. It is about to blow up taking down Lebanon with it.
-
Dear Friends, Thanks for your input.
for those of us who are mere students, this issue of interpretation becomes extremely confusing. Consider what is going on:
Two different groups, having extensive knowledge of Arabic differing over this issue of Miracles !!
What is a common man supposed to do?
That leads me to another major point I have with religion:
When a Prophet is alive, all such matters are resolved by an authority sent by Allah. When the Prophet is no longer with us within a few years, disputes over interpretation emerge and then conflict starts. Take the differences over Imamat vs Khilafat dispute between Shias and Sunnis. Each argue that their position is right. Now, with the Prophet no longer around what this leads to is division and it's consequences.
Question is when such major disputes arise, how are we to resolve them with no Divine Interpreter present. Sure we have the Qur'an but people differ over it's meaning as well!!
Sometimes, in such situations one wishes that another Messenger arrives and settles such disputes uniting the Ummah. Since that is no longer the case what are we supposed to do? Differ with grace and agree to disagree? In certain matters not vital for peace we can do so but how about sectarian conflicts. Look what is going on in Syria. It is about to blow up taking down Lebanon with it.
Assalamu alaikum,
Issues like miracles should not be dragged so as to cause a division or dispute. There is no problem for having an intellectual discussion. We will be able to go deeper into the meanings of verses in Quran. I tolerate both views so long as we are focused on the Quran only for our guidance. Like parwez himself had stated, it is an issue that concerns a scholar how he is interested in the mental development of man. My first impression after coming across this view was that how logical and scientific is the Quran if it is the case. Anyhow, our primary objective should be, as I said, to focus only on Quran for our guidance. Differences of opinion of issues like miracles should be tolerated. I also do not think people who object to miracles are just simply shooting in the air without any basis.
Personally, I have found satisfactory explanation for the possibility of allegorical narrations in several things which are traditionally interpreted as miracles. There are certain things I have not yet convinced about the possibility of allegorical usage, for instance, the miraculous birth of Jesus. I have tried to understand the issue and even come across certain logical analysis different from traditional understanding. let me post here some points. My intention is not to take a stand, but to analyze the counter argument.
1. We do not know exactly when the good news about a son was told to Mary, however it is clear she is not married yet. When events are told in an order suddenly we think these things are happening right after each other in small time span. May be most things happen with much time in between
2. Mary’s comment “How can I have a son, when no man hath touched me, nor am I unchaste?” in verse 19:20 is a clear inference to unmarried status which is relevant from Mary’s comment that she is also not unchaste. The statement “No man has touched” is also relevant because she was in the temple, and she lived a virtuous life and has been raised as a nun. And therefore it is likely to be a normal comment.
3. Allah had made decisions for Mary which would create conflicts with the Temple customs, this is why she reacted on the malikah as such, why she had to flee the Temple and why her people reacted as such. All the verses involved show that Allah made her go against the Priesthood rules.
4. Mary faced accusation from others not for having an ‘illegitimate’ child, but for violating the custom and revolting against the Temple norms. Bagiyaa in 19:28means 'to go beyond the bounds of normal conduct'. Unchaste is not the real meaning, but an interpreted one.
5. The comparison of Jesus to Adam in verse 3:59 is to state strongly that Jesus is not the son of God and to make it clear that Jesus is just like any other human by comparing him to adam, all mankind. Adam, or the first humans, was made in stages and was a khalifah, a successor of the earlier human species.
6. Regarding mentioning about Jesus speaking to people in the Cradle, the point is that Mary left her people who were angry with her because in their opinion she had given up a life of celibacy and now Mary comes back (she had a child) and this was against the rule of monasticism. Actually Mary returns back only after Jesus bestowed with Nabuwwah at a young age. When events are told in an order there is no need to assume everything is happening right after each other in small time span. After Mary was questioned again for her conduct, Mary, without answering, pointed to the child to answer them. At this, the priests said sarcastically: kaifa nukallimu mun kaana fil mahdi sabiyya: 19:29 how can we talk to a child who is newly born? How can we talk to a child for explanation: this makes the meaning of al mahd (cradle) clear: This is ‘takallum fil mahd’: (i.e. talking about the universal truths at a young age) also in 3:45, 5:110. The reply that was given by Jesus to the priests also shows that it was not a reply from the cradle: i.e. was not the reply of a child: Jesus said inni abdul laahi aataaniyal kitaaba wa ja’alni nabiyya…: 19:30 I am a banda (slave) of God : He has given me the Book: and made me a prophet: this shows that this a period when Jesus has been endowed with prophet hood.
I am just sharing all these views in order for us to get the inspiration to ponder deed into the meaning of the Quran
-
Let me quote the following verse also from Quran;
"And the Messengers indeed have been rejected before thee, but notwithstanding their rejection and persecution they remained patient until Our help came to them. There is none to change the words of God. And there have already come to thee some of the tidings of the past Messengers. And if their turning away is hard on thee, then, if thou art able to seek a passage into the earth or a ladder unto heaven and bring them a Sign, thou canst do so. And had God enforced His will, He could surely have brought them all together to the guidance. So be thou not of those who lack knowledge" (6:35)
The above verse contains a hidden warning to prophet not to have any thought of possessing the power to work miracles so that people could be persuaded to accept his teaching and follow the right path. The verse also reminds the prophet how messengers before worked hard and how they remained patient during difficult times until victory came to them. This verse also seems to imply that other messengers also did not perform miracles to persuade people to believe.
-
Dear All,
Salamun Alaikum
The Quran's treatment of Biblical narratives should not be appreciated in silo. It is important to remember that the People of the Book had been familiar with these narratives for centuries. If the Quran intended to depart from the traditional understanding of the Jews and Christians, it would have clearly stated it.
However, we find in most instances, the Quran 'confirming' (musaddiqan) the Biblical narratives (3:3). The Quran also recognises what the People of the Book were reading at the time of the Prophet's ministry [1] so therefore, was clearly in dialogue with their understanding at the time.
For us to accept an allegorical meaning, we have to prove the Quran clearly challenged the same stories that were known to the Jewish and Christian audience.
So for example, if Prophet Moses's rod became a snake (Hebrew - naw-khawsh: snake, serpent - Exodus 4:3) and this is how it was always understood by the People of the Book for generations, why did the Quran use a similar expression to describe the same narrative (Arabic: jannun - serpent, snake (27:10) thu'banun: serpent)?
This is clearly a 'confirmation'. Why did the Quran not challenge this Biblical understanding? Why did it confirm it in Arabic? This would be the perfect place for the Quran to challenge the Biblical understanding of portents.
To impose new allegorical meanings which were never understood by its primary Jewish and Christian audience for me is intellectually unacceptable. Therefore, I will add a fourth, fifth and sixth question to my list of academic contentions that challenge those that deny the Quran's clear testimony of portents.
- Given God's infinite capacity, please provide clear Quranic proof that He cannot temporarily suspend / alter / interfere with the laws He himself has created as and when 'He so wills' to manifest a particular truth
- What did God stop / withhold / arrest / prevent / refrain / suspend (mana) in 17:59 going forward that He had sent to previous communities?
- How could God stop something (17:59) He did before, if He did not alter His ways?
- Why does the Quran 'confirm' (musaddiqan) the traditional understanding of the Jewish and Christian audience at the time of the Prophet's ministry with regards portents and not challenge it?
- Why does the Quran use similar terms in the Arabic language to support the existing understanding of the Jews and Christians regarding portents?
- Why would one not accept the Quran's clear testimony, even though the Quran says it is not a book of riddles and has no crookedness?
"...qur'anan arabiyyan ghayra dhi iwajin ..." (A Quran in Arabic without any crookedness...)
Finally, I ask another humble question. Do some simply not accept the Quran's testimony as it doesn't fit in with their worldview? Do they look for allegorical meanings because they do not want to accept the Quran at its word?
Respectfully, we cannot skirt fundamental questions in the name of being students. We all have an individual responsibility as believers to address fundamental questions rather than spending time focusing on peripheral matters.
Dear Mubashir - Even if a prophet came to our midst - those that don't want to accept certain passages of the Quran be they miracles or otherwise, simply won't. They would have arguably done exactly the same at the time of the Prophet as well. Why wouldn't they? The Prophet would have narrated exactly the same as what we read today. No one from antiquity has ever understood Biblical portents narrated by the Quran as just simple allegories.
So the Quran had to wait till the 20th century for this meaning to become apparent? I find this assertion as untenable as some other modern 'discoveries' pertaining to the Quran.
This kind of denial has happened before when revelations were challenged because they did not fit one’s ‘worldview’. "...Bring us a reading other than this, or change this..." (10:15). Then there were those that changed words out of context later and pinned their own meanings to the text. (5:13: 5:41).
It would simply make no difference. They even made a mockery out of Prophet Jesus's example when it was quoted to them (43:57).
We may criticise the Ummah for disputations. But I ask with humbleness, how willing are we ourselves to accept the Quran at its word? We need to ask ourselves a very honest question:
"Do we impose our view on the Quran or do we simply accept what it says in clear Arabic?" I believe, deep down we know where we sit with this uncomfortable question and so does our Lord and Master.
Regards,
Joseph.
Related Articles:
[1] 'BETWEEN HIS HANDS' OR 'BEFORE IT' (MA BAYNA YADAYHI)
http://quransmessage.com/articles/between%20hands%20or%20before%20it%20FM3.htm
[2] PEOPLE OF THE BOOK (JEWS & CHRISTIANS)
http://quransmessage.com/articles/people%20of%20the%20book%20FM3.htm
-
Salaam all ,
With regard to Mubashir's comments, it is disconcerting especially for those who do not know Arabic when you have translations that are completely different from the mainstream.
The translations by Parvez and Shabbir do not stand up to scrutiny simply because they do not represent the Arabic closely enough.
Joseph has raised the right questions regarding parables, as we have to look at the issue as a whole and taking all the verses into account, it is plain to see that miracles do exist.
Optimist, you make the correct point where you say that we should only look at the Quran for guidance. However I note your comments regarding Mary.
The points you make about her being a nun and breaking temple rules are not from the Quran. The only reason that this is being used, is in order for those who do not believe in Jesus's miraculous birth to be able to explain the verses in a different way.
In my opinion this is utterly underhanded because they are not using the Quran to explain itself which is meant to be the guiding principle according to Parvez and Shabbir.
-
- Given God's infinite capacity, please provide clear Quranic proof that He cannot temporarily suspend / alter / interfere with the laws He himself has created as and when 'He so wills' to manifest a particular truth
Wa'alaikum'ussalam,
I note all of your comments/ points with respect. I would like to point out a different arguement here for verses like "He so wills" . My intention is only to hightlight another point of view. Parwez clarifys through many quranic verses and explanations that the Quranic use of “شاء - يشاء etc.” should be translated as: ‘whatever is His law or Will’ (مشيئة) and not as : ‘whatever He wants’. It should be: ‘Whatever He has already wanted’
http://www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/kt/kt_10.htm
I - لو شاء الله - If Allah Willed
II - ما شاء الله - What Allah Wills
III - إن شاء الله - If Allah Wills
IV - من يشـاء - (Whoever wishes)
V- يفعل ما يشاء (He (Allah) does what He wants
VI- يحكم ما يريد (He (Allah) ordains what He intends)[/list]
-
Dear Optimist,
Salamun Alaikum.
The inference "If He so wills" does not mean that God makes his mind up like human beings as and when situations arise. God is not dependant nor is he part of time and space. Therefore, He does not need to wait for 'situations' to occur. We operate within time and space and are subject to it. He controls His affairs of the Universe from outside the realm of time and space. Please let us think about this for a moment.
This also does not mean that we have no 'free will' *, but God knows of our choices before we make them and before the Universe was created.
If a mountain is to crumble, the necessary steps to make this happen were put into place within the earth’s geology long before Prophet Moses would ask the question (7:143). God did not make His mind up on the spot. God just knew Prophet Moses would ask the question out of choice and He had already prepared an answer.
With respect, though I sense a particular theological bias in what you have presented from Parwez, it is not completely incorrect. But the view you have shared does not address my central concerns, as the main assertion you quoted still stands.
What if God had already chosen a portent to occur to manifest a particular truth to a set of people? I humbly assert that this cannot be disproved.
However sadly in my view, despite the strength in the argument above, there are those that will simply not accept this.
Regards,
Joseph.
* Note
I also do not subscribe to absolute free will. There are clear passages where our wills or collective wills have been curtailed by God. Whether this pertains to one community inheriting after God displaces another (26:57-59, 59:3-7) , whether our hands are kept from harming each other or we are prevented to pull down places of worship (22:40) etc, God maintains ultimate control according to His will. It is His responsibility to provide a suitable platform where we can all be tested with what He has given us (75:36, 29:2-3, 3:186).
In our own lives there have undoubtedly been situations which we have pursued with might, yet we have remained unsuccessful. On the other hand, we have often noted things unexpected come to fruition. It is all part of His master-plan.
-
If a mountain is to crumble, the necessary steps to make this happen were put into place within the earth’s geology long before Prophet Moses would ask the question (7:143). God did not make His mind up on the spot. God just knew Prophet Moses would ask the question out of choice and He had already prepared an answer.
Wa'alaikumussalam,
I believe you are in a way confirms that everything happens in the created universe based on "cause and effect", which applies uniformly to the entire Universe.
What if God had already chosen a portent to occur to manifest a particular truth to a set of people? I humbly assert that this cannot be disproved.
Again the point is whether it is without "cause and effect". I would like to state in brief some points as explained by partwez in Book of Destiny; http://www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/kt/kt_02.htm
1. Allah’s domain has two relmns, Amr and Khalq. Khalq is the created universe while Amr is whatever is beyond. The domain of ‘Amr’ (creating from nothingness) is exclusive to Allah and Allah alone. This is the initial stage of creation. The chemistry of it all is beyond human comprehension and consequently, unquestionable. Allah used His exclusive power and privileges to create things (from nothingness) giving them their particular characteristics (24/45). He simply exercised His ‘will’. There are no binding laws. Amr is based upon ‘Allah’s will’. (22/14, 11/107, 5/1, 22/18, 21/31). 2/117 also 6/14 and 30/11.)
2. Having created the universe according to His own will, Allah introduced a great change in this cosmic program. Now, He bound His Amr in LAWS. In the ‘Domain of ‘Khalq’ Allah’s will is bound by laws and thus ‘Allah set a standard to everything’ (65/3)....................Here it is important to know how the term ‘Qadr’ (قدر) is used in Quran. Quran uses the word Q-D-R with the basic meaning of a measure. ‘Qadrun’ or ‘Taqdeer’ means a measure or a standard; also, of something to be of the right measurements, standard and estimate. ‘Qadr’ (قدر) of the Quran is nothing but the Laws of Nature. Sura An’aam reports: “Allah made night for rest and the sun and the moon for calculation (of time). This the taqdeer (destiny) of the Powerful and Knowledgeable Allah,” 6/97). In other words, this is Allah’s law. Similarly, Sura Yaseen reports: “And the sun is on course to its station. This the Powerful and Knowledgeable Allah’s taqdeer,” (36/38). Elsewhere, it says: “And We decorated the world’s sky with bright lamps (stars), and provided you protection through them. This the Powerful and Knowledgeable Allah’s taqdeer,” (41/12). Sura Furqaan reports: “He created all things and then determined taqdeer for them,” (25/2). Obviously, taqdeer means Nature’s laws. Again, Sura AdDahr reports: These goblets will be made of (brilliant) silver and made to special taqdeer (measures),” (76/16).
3. These taqadeer (standards, measures - law of Nature) of Allah’s are pre-determined (it was done in the domain of ‘Amr’) and they are ‘written’ in the ‘book of Nature / Universe’. This is referred to as ‘the clearly set book’. It says in Sura An’aam: “Allah knows what is in the seas and on land. He knows every leaf that falls off a tree. He also knows even a grain in the darkness of the Earth. The truth is that each and every thing (in detail) is there in the clearly-set book.” (6/59) That is to say that standards have been set to all things in the universe and are there. (17/58) ((for anyone to read if they so wish)). This is physics (science). That is why these laws are called (قدر معلوم)in (15/21) and (15/24) i.e., laws which can be discovered. Adam (mankind) is said to have been given ‘the knowledge of names’. This is nothing but the knowledge of the universe. (for more detailed discussion of ‘Qadr’ kindly go through the link I posted above)
4. In the same way every occurrence in the physical universe is based on pre-determined laws enacted by Allah, in the Man’s social world also everything takes place under pre-determined laws. In the social world, man is a responsible being who enjoys freedom of choice of right and wrong. Man can choose an action but has to bear its consequence (pre-ordained by Allah). This is the Law of Results of Action, which is constant and firm. Man should bear in mind the Law of Returns which oversees all his actions (انه بما تعملون بصير - 41/40)........... Man is free to choose his action but is not free to change the natural consequences of that action. This Nature’s ‘Law of Returns’ applies to nations as well as to individuals.................... The words in the Quran ‘whatever Allah has written for us’ do not mean our pre-determined fate but whatever law has already been established. Fore example, see (2/187) where it says: ‘Strive to get whatever Allah has written for you. “obviously, ‘written’ in this verse does not mean pre-determined fate’ because that is inevitable and, as such, does not require any effort to get. Similarly, in (58/21) it says: “Allah has written that He and His prophets will out come out victorious.” The Quran is full of the monumental struggle which prophets had to do to succeed in their missions. Sura ‘Araaf cites Moses’ people requesting Allah to “write for us good things in this life as well as in the hereafter.” Allah’s response was: “These (good things) are WRITTEN for those who (are ‘muttaqeen) follow Allah’s laws. For more detailed analysis pleas go through http://www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/kt/kt_06.htm
5. Allah’s Word (كلمة الله) and Allah’s Way (سنة الله) have been used to mean Allah’s law. Kalima’ is the formula (theory) while ‘SunnatAllah’ is the practical form the ‘Kalimatullah’ takes. Both of these are permanent: (6/34, 6/116, 18/27 and also 10/64) for ‘Kalimatullah’ and (33/62, 40/85, 48/23) for ‘SunnatAllah’. Not only are these laws permanent but they don’t even change course (17/77, 35/43)! It has been mentioned above that Allah’s ‘Amr (will) becomes (قدرا مقدورا) ‘set standards & measures’ in the created universe. This is referred to as ‘SunnatAllah’ in (33/38), i.e., it becomes unchangeable law.
6. His ‘Amr - absolute power and choice - transformed to building permanent Law of Nature. In other words, Allah bound Himself! Shocking, isn’t it? But, it IS true. We witness it routinely. For example, see (6/12 & 6/54) where He says: ‘He has made Rahma compulsory for Himself. (4) Also, see (10/103): ‘We have the obligation to protect the convinced. This has also been termed as ‘Allahs Promise’ in (16/38, 31/9, 31/33, 35/5, 40/55 & 40/77). Also to be noted is the declaration that He always does, and will, keep His promise (30/6, 3/193). This may give rise to the argument that a ‘law abiding Allah’ ceases to be the all-powerful Allah’. But this is misleading. One does not cease to have power if one submits to a law voluntarily. For instance, if you are made to, against your will, have a daily 3- mile early morning walk, you are forced. But if you decide to do it, on your own accord, you are free. One who keeps promises and adopts certain principles in life, is not powerless. On the contrary, such a person is termed a man of honor, upholder of principles and reliable. Therefore, Allah doesn’t lose any power by binding himself in His own Laws. In fact, such a Allah is worthy of being Allah. He is a Allah who can be trusted because His laws are reliable. Despite having the power to do so, He doesn’t break laws.
-
Dear Optimist,
Salamun Alaikum.
I have to confess that I am deeply saddened by your persistence to copy and paste long paragraphs from Parwez's work which do little to address what I feel are central contentions. I am familiar with this approach by others but I humbly expected your kind self to be different. It is saddening for me given some of your comments where you have clearly stated that it is not your intention to follow anyone as you are answerable to God alone. It is also disconcerting for me as it appears that you clearly have been gifted great intellect and a capacity to reason.
As you will no doubt agree, something is not true simply because Ghulam Parwez says so. I personally often find Ghulam Parwez's statements a matter of conjecture, opinion and interpolations rather than solely backed up with Quranic proof. However, let me not digress. Ghulam Parwez is not the main topic of discussion and I have no intention to discuss his work per se further. I trust that you will respect this.
My academic contentions against those that deny Biblical portents are clearly stated below. Unless there is an honest attempt to address these contentions in the form of an academic rebuttal and clear proof from the Quran, I am disinclined to continue the debate. I feel there is no mileage in an endless discussion for the sake of a discussion.
With respect, please note again my contentions. I await a suitable response.
- Given God's infinite capacity, please provide clear Quranic proof that He cannot temporarily suspend / alter / interfere with the laws He himself has created as and when 'He so wills' to manifest a particular truth
- What did God stop / withhold / arrest / prevent / refrain / suspend (mana) in 17:59 going forward that He had sent to previous communities?
- How could God stop something (17:59) He did before, if He did not alter His ways?
- Why does the Quran 'confirm' (musaddiqan) the traditional understanding of the Jewish and Christian audience at the time of the Prophet's ministry with regards portents and not challenge it?
- Why does the Quran use similar terms in the Arabic language to support the existing understanding of the Jews and Christians regarding portents?
- Why would one not accept the Quran's clear testimony, even though the Quran says it is not a book of riddles and has no crookedness?
"...qur'anan arabiyyan ghayra dhi iwajin ..." (A Quran in Arabic without any crookedness...)
If these simple contentions have no suitable response, then I assert that the theological charge against the existence of Biblical portents is FALSE and without warrant.
Regards,
Joseph.
-
With respect, please note again my contentions. I await a suitable response.
- Given God's infinite capacity, please provide clear Quranic proof that He cannot temporarily suspend / alter / interfere with the laws He himself has created as and when 'He so wills' to manifest a particular truth
Salamun alaikum,
I think this question is required a slight modification. The question should not be whether Allah is competent to temporarily suspend the laws, it should be whether Allah will ever suspend /alter /interfere. Allah is very much competent to suspend/ alter/ interfere, but Allah will not do. For instance, the taste of salt is salty, Allah could have made it taste differently. Can Allah change the taste of salt to something else? Yes of course, Allah can do it, but Allah will not do. This applies in the social world also.
“This has been Our way with Our Messengers whom We sent before thee; and thou wilt not find any change in Our way” (17:77)
“Such has been the way of God with those who passed away before, and never thou wilt find a change in the way of God.”(33:62)
“(Such has been) Allah's Way of dealing with His Servants (from the most ancient times).” (40:85)
“Such has ever been the law of God; and thou shalt not find any change in the law of God.”(48:23)
“Thus [it is]: no change wilt thou ever find in God's way; yea, no deviation wilt thou ever find in God's way!” (35: 43)
- What did God stop / withhold / arrest / prevent / refrain / suspend (mana) in 17:59 going forward that He had sent to previous communities?
- How could God stop something (17:59) He did before, if He did not alter His ways?
The reason why no miracles have been provided to the prophet, as stated in the Quran many times, was because the prophet was only a human being like us and a messenger with responsibility to deliver the message only. I will say, the explanation of “Miracles” in the above verse is only an interpretation, it is because we try to interpret the verse based on our pre-conceived notions.
Please tell me what is the “miracle” in the story of Thamud discussed in the context? People of Thamud treated Allah’s warnings with contempt and brought about punishment and immediate destruction. The purpose for sending such a warning was to strike terror into the hearts of evildoers and reclaim them to the right path. Here fear is used as a motive for reclaiming certain kinds of hard hearts. Allah could have send the message with such warnings, however, it is Allah's Mercy that he gives the disbelievers grace for a time and prevents the coming of punishments which would overwhelm them if they were put to their trial at once.
Considering your explanation of "miracles" associated with earlier people, we know that, when people asked Jesus a miracle, what Jesus himself had stated was. according to Quran, "Fear Allah, if ye have faith." (5:12).
Also, it is to be noted that Allah mentions with contempt the habit of people requesting “miracles”;
“And those who have no knowledge say, 'Why does God not speak to us, or a Sign come to us direct?' Likewise said those before them what was similar to their saying. Their hearts are all alike. We have certainly made the Signs plain for a people who firmly believe.” (2:118)
- Why does the Quran 'confirm' (musaddiqan) the traditional understanding of the Jewish and Christian audience at the time of the Prophet's ministry with regards portents and not challenge it?
- Why does the Quran use similar terms in the Arabic language to support the existing understanding of the Jews and Christians regarding portents?
I think we need to take into account the following things and take up the issue for further deliberations.
1. There are christian scholars/ writers who claim that rod of Moses and many biblical stories, even the story of Adam are allegorical. You can check for book “The Rod of the Almond Tree in God’s Master Plan” by Peter A. Michas , mainly from chapter 6 onwards. I will say such an analysis is interesting only, especially from a Christian point of view.
2. Then there is the issue how Quran can explain things which are having a pshychological reality to the people and I am unable to find a reason why a theological stand should have been taken in explicit terms other than metaphorically explaining the things as it is and at the same time mentioning the reality of the actual situation through many verses.
3. Another important thing is to be noted is that no where any “miracles” have been said to have been done in response to a demand for miracles. When a demand was made, as stated in the Quran, the response from Jesus was, “fear your lord”. So please note, a "miracle" is said to have been performed when there was no request for it from people! It is strange and there is a lot to ponder over.
4. An allegorical narration might be best possible way to explain facts for people who are not familiar and present at the time and period in history. The fact that Moses requested Allah the help of Aaron for the reason that Aaron was more fluent speech and debate is itself a proof that what happened before Pharoah was more than a magical feast (it is interesting to note, in the biblical narration it is Aaron who is throwing the stick). We are actually overlooking the possiblity of an intellectual debate and consequent victory explained through an allegory of a real snake swallowing false and faked snakes. Even assuming this an allegory, the words and statements have deep and powerful meanings.
5. Quran itself testifies that it contains allegorical verses and and Allah only knows the essence of the realities which these verses represent. Also, those who make a right approach to knowledge believe in the realities but can also form an idea of what they are and can perceive their significance. (3:7) and look also (74:31)
- Why would one not accept the Quran's clear testimony, even though the Quran says it is not a book of riddles and has no crookedness?
"...qur'anan arabiyyan ghayra dhi iwajin ..." (A Quran in Arabic without any crookedness...)
Again, quranic confirmation for the existance of allegorical verses must be sufficient to answer this point. There are two types of verses. The first kind consists of those verses which have definite meaning and constitute the foundation of Allah’s Laws. The second kind are figurative and explain abstract realities metaphorically. It is unfair to drag the issue of “crookedness” into allegorical verses. Moreover, even assuming such an argument is valid, I can quote for you a number of verses a person with ordinary understading can not grasp its real meanings without indept study and analysis. I provide below a few instances;
“And We have set none but angels as Guardians of the Fire; and We have fixed their number only as a trial for Unbelievers,- in order that the People of the Book may arrive at certainty, and the Believers may increase in Faith” (74:31)
"Whomever God wills to guide, He renders his chest wide open to Submission. And whomever He wills to send astray, He renders his chest intolerant and constricted, as if he were ascending in the sky." 6:125 (We now know the beauty in the statement “as if he were ascending in the sky”)
We ourselves earlier discussed verses 2:72-73 and in yourown analysis of this verse you said; “Verses 2:72-73 often provide an array of interpretations from commentators with different theological perspectives.” ..........................” Whether an actual body was roused from death or whether there is room for a metaphorical interpretation of how God manifests truth of murder will be open to discussion. Such details do not seem to be the purpose of the Quran to expound.” My question; Can we say the above verse is a crooked verse due to lack of a direct clear meaning?
I can quote for you so many verses like the above. I am sure you yourself will be familiar with more than such verses than myself. People who use their intellect and reason will be able to grasp the real meaning (more or less) of such verses, and those who do not use their intelligence may explain such verses as "crooked". The fault is on us for not properly applying our intelligence.
-
Dear Optimist,
Salamun Alaikum,
Thank you for your post
Please see my responses to what I understand are your rebuttals. You have chosen to at times deal with my contentions in pairs, thus I have grouped them into contentions for ease of perusal.
Contention Group 1:
Given God's infinite capacity, please provide clear Quranic proof that He cannot temporarily suspend / alter / interfere with the laws He himself has created as and when 'He so wills' to manifest a particular truth
You have proposed to change the question and assert that Allah would not change His ways. You have quoted verses 17:77, 33:62, 40:85, 48:23 and 35:43 as evidence.
All the above verses quoted refer to God's way in dealing with former people who have transgressed in some capacity. God is not unjust and does not change the way He deals with people who have transgressed.
These verses have nothing to do with God’s ability to change His laws of nature to manifest a particular truth.
Therefore, I resubmit my contention with a modification as you have asserted that God would not change His ways:
Please can you provide clear Quranic proof that He cannot and would not temporarily suspend / alter / interfere with the laws He himself has created as and when 'He so wills' to manifest a particular truth.
Contention Group 2:
What did God stop / withhold / arrest / prevent / refrain / suspend (mana) in 17:59 going forward that He had sent to previous communities?
How could God stop something (17:59) He did before, if He did not alter His ways?
I humbly find no response to this question in your rebuttal. You mention the Prophet Muhammad. I have never argued that any miracles came to the Prophet. The question is thus - 17:59 clearly states that something was stopped (mana) for communities at the time of the Prophet and those that would come after them. What was stopped?
Furthermore, I find no response to the question: how could God stop something (17:59) He did before, if He did not alter His ways?
Contention Group 3:
Why does the Quran 'confirm' (musaddiqan) the traditional understanding of the Jewish and Christian audience at the time of the Prophet's ministry with regards portents and not challenge it?
Why does the Quran use similar terms in the Arabic language to support the existing understanding of the Jews and Christians regarding portents?
With utmost respect, appealing to isolated Christian theology [in point 1] does not in my view address the contention.
However, as you have submitted the assertion, please can you therefore provide clear evidence that the early Christians unanimously thought of Biblical portents as allegories. It is what the ancients thought which is important as this is whom the Quran came into contact with and not what some modern Biblical theologians may posit as ‘best explanation’
I assert that this is no different to relying on modern Muslim theologians who claim allegories. I look forward to clear evidence for ancient Biblical understanding ideally supported by well documented ancient writings.
Furthermore, I do not find a response to my contention in your points [2], [3], [4] and [5]. I look forward to a further response to my contention.
Contention Group 4:
Why would one not accept the Quran's clear testimony, even though the Quran says it is not a book of riddles and has no crookedness?
"...qur'anan arabiyyan ghayra dhi iwajin ..." (A Quran in Arabic without any crookedness...)
Though you do not reference it per se, you have chosen to cite 3:7 as proof of the existence of allegories in the Quran. May I respectfully remind you that as per 3:7, the foundation of the Quran is based on ‘muhkamatun’ and clear verses, not allegories. There is a difference between clear Arabic text narrated in full to support central Biblical understanding such as portents and isolated texts such as the number of guardians of the fire which you have quoted (74:31).
A considerable portion of the Quran deals with Biblical portents in clear Arabic speech. These are not allegories. I assert with respect, that you have chosen to 'impose' allegories on to clear Arabic text. This is not the purport of verse 3:7.
For example God clearly says in verse 5:110 that Prophet Jesus:
- Made clay birds and then breathed life into them by God's leave - 'fatanfukhu fiha fatakunu tayran bi'idhni' (then you breath into it and it becomes a bird by My permission)
- That he raised the dead by God's leave - 'tukh'riju l-mawta bi'idh'ni' (you bring forth the dead by My permission)
This is clear Arabic speech.
Is God really using clear Arabic speech to provide allegories and then tells us not to follow allegories as it is the approach of the perverted (zayghun)? (3:7)
Therefore, I humbly do not accept your appeal to the mention of 'mutashabihaat' (allegories) in 3:7 to support your rebuttal of my contention.
Finally dear brother, are you at all willing to accept the literal testimony of the Quran that God did in fact suspend His laws when He required to manifest a particular truth to a particular people who were best placed to understand it? That he confirmed (musaddaqan) Biblical narratives by using similar expressions? That He stopped (mana) sending any more portents because He revealed clear evidence that previous people had simply denied it?
If people today cannot accept clear Arabic text that supports the existence of 'portents', can we not see why previous people may have also denied it?
God gives an apt example of a condition of a people that would continue to deny clear evidence.
015:15-16
And even if We opened unto them a gate of heaven and they kept mounting through it, they would say: Our sight is wrong - nay, but we are folk bewitched"
Are you not even willing to consider it as a possibility?
May God bless you always iA.
Your brother in faith,
Joseph.
-
Salaam Optomist,
Is is great that people like yourself are trying to separate the Quran from the traditional understanding that is marred by secondary sources.
I too decided to step back and start again, realising that I had looked at some subjects through pre conceived ideologies that had no basis from the Quran.
However this does not mean that everything in the Quran needs to be redefined just because the traditionalists practiced or believed in it.
I believe that salaat means physical prayer and that saum means fasting. I also believe that miracles existed.
That does not make me a traditionist. The Quran only approach does not mean that we strip everything back to the point where nothing exists, just leaving a void behind to be filled by big egos who have gone beyond the point of no return.
Shaytaan cannot change the Arabic, but has worked his way through the understanding of the words, to such an extent that we now have a Quran that is unrecognisable.
-
Salaam Optomist,
Is is great that people like yourself are trying to separate the Quran from the traditional understanding that is marred by secondary sources.
I too decided to step back and start again, realising that I had looked at some subjects through pre conceived ideologies that had no basis from the Quran.
However this does not mean that everything in the Quran needs to be redefined just because the traditionalists practiced or believed in it.
I believe that salaat means physical prayer and that saum means fasting. I also believe that miracles existed.
That does not make me a traditionist. The Quran only approach does not mean that we strip everything back to the point where nothing exists, just leaving a void behind to be filled by big egos who have gone beyond the point of no return.
Shaytaan cannot change the Arabic, but has worked his way through the understanding of the words, to such an extent that we now have a Quran that is unrecognisable.
Wa' alaikumussalam,
Thank you for your comments. I am also very happy to meet people like you with similar views. I prefer to accommodate all those who focus only on Quran for guidance. The points is, differences of opinion on issues like miracles should not be taken as a major hurdle in the Quranic path. In other words, when someone tells us about Parwez, we should not say, Oh yes Parwez, I know him, the one who denies miracles, who translates and interprets the Quran whimsically! No can deny his in-depth knowledge in Arabic which is evidence from two masterpieces of his life achievement Lughat-ul-Quran & Tabweeb-ul-Quran, both running into several volumes. The former helps the reader to get clear root meanings of a word, and the latter helps him to know its Quranic concept through tasreef-e-ayat. We should not overlook his other contributions also. Please just read one of his works, out of many, "Quranic Laws (Qurani Qawaneen)" and see how beautifully and convincingly he explains all aspects focusing only on Quran. Just see the topics that he covers ; http://www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/QL/QL.htm
Regarding differences of opinion on issues like miracles, even what Parwez himself had stated was this; “If you do not agree with my corollaries, you may ignore them and make your own decisions by contemplating upon the text. My only objective is to facilitate the work of those intending to tread the Quranic path, (helping them along according to my own ability and breadth of vision), so that they may find it easy to reach the goal. I would like to be their fellow traveller, not mentor.”
Also towards the end of his work, “Reasons for decline of Muslims”, (the first book I read from Parwez) he makes a passionate appeal to all to write to him, to work together in the Quranic path, and to keep in touch with him in this mission; He says;
“…….in the world the relationship established through Quranic thought and contemplation and seeing eye to eye in harmony is a relationship so strong and firm that none other relation compares with it. It is also possible that through this mutual contact and communication, we could give more serious thought on this issue and devise ways and means to remove the obstacles and make the path smoother. And in this manner and in the universal light of the Quran, with its discernment and insight go on raising the curtains, the curtains which have fallen for a thousand years of dark conformity with the ancestors and religious tyranny have fallen on them”
Therefore, even if we ignore his views of miracles, we should appreciate and take inspiration from his life, his other major works that are written focusing only on Quran.
-
Are you not even willing to consider it as a possibility?
Wa' alaikumussalam,
With immense respect to your comments (I may make further comments later if I have any further points) I would like to ask you very politely the same question back.....whether you are willing to consider the narratives in Quran, like Ant's speech, the possibility of an allegory?, considering the fact that an Ant cannot think and act like humans do. Why it is necessary to insist to give a literal interpretation? For me, this allegory of Ant is not a difficult thing to understand especially considering the fact that Solomon had a mighty and powerful army. Isn't it a possibility Quran allegorically stating how powerful was the army of Solomon in comparison with the people in the valley, who wanted to avoid and confine themselves into their dwellings without causing any hindrance to the movement of Solomon’s army lest they might get involved and crushed in the process. Solomon smiles after he came to know about this news and his immediate prayer is also relevant here. Solomons then prays “My Lord, grant me that I may be grateful to Thee, for Thy favour which Thou hast bestowed upon me and upon my parents, and that I may do such good works as would please Thee, and admit me, by Thy mercy, among Thy righteous servants”. This is not a prayer associated with knowing an Ant’s speech, but this is a prayer as a result of realization of his status and position in comparison with others.
Now tell me, are you not willing to consider it even as a possibility?
-
Are you not even willing to consider it as a possibility?
Now tell me, are you not willing to consider it even as a possibility?
Salamun Alaikum,
Of course my dear brother, why wouldn't I? Like you, I too only rely on what I feel is manifest, clear proof.
I must rely on what I believe is the best argument and you must do what you feel is right. We are not responsible for each other.
With respect, I clearly elaborated why I asked you to consider my view.
I have taken clear narratives of the Quran in clear Arabic speech which confirms (Musaddaqan) Biblical portents literally. You do not. I have asserted with respect, that I feel there is no academic warrant for your view in the Quran that God would not alter His laws temporarily if He so Wills to manifest a particular truth. I also strongly contest the use of 'mutashibihaat' based on verse 3:7 when referring to the Quran when it presents clear Arabic speech.
With respect, there is a fundamental difference in my approach to Quranic narratives and yours.
As a believer, I feel that I am instructed to rely on clear Arabic speech and I do not think the Quran is a book of riddles or allegories nor does it present allegories when dealing with full narratives. You feel differently with reasons that you have kindly shared.
Whether you are willing to accept the Quran literally or not is of course your prerogative and only you alone are answerable. Similarly, I am answerable alone for the position I have taken.
However, I would always ask the question, why did God reveal large elucidatory narratives in clear Arabic speech if He was only intending them to be riddles and allegories which he did not want us to pursue? (alladahina fi qulubihim zayghun fayattabiuna ma tashabaha – 3:7) those in their hearts is perversity – so they follow what is allegorical.
Although with respect, returning the question back to me may feel justified on your part, I now feel that we have exhausted our points of view and it is up to the public readership to analyse our discussions sincerely and consider which has the greater cogency.
In the end, Only God knows best.
Thank you for all your input.
Regards,
Joseph. :)
-
(alladahina fi qulubihim zayghun fayattabiuna ma tashabaha – 3:7) those in their hearts is perversity – so they follow what is allegorical.
Salamun Alaikum,
Thank you for your comments. I liked the discussion with you and I love your sincere heart. May Allah lead us to the right path and I sincerely prays these differences of opinion on issues like miracles among people who want to focus only on Quran should not lead distract their hearts.
I have only one comment for the above quote from you related to verse 3:7. I believe the correct understanding of the above statement from Allah is not the way you have stated. Let me explain to you. According to the entire verse in question, Allah's book contains two kinds of verses, the first kind consists of those verses which have definite meaning and constitute the foundation of Allah’s Laws. The second kind are figurative and explain abstract realities metaphorically. (Alladahina fi qulubihim zayghun fayattabiuna ma tashabaha means those who tend to deviate from Allah’s Path, take the figurative verses in their literal sense thereby causing discord by interpreting these verses in their own way. The correct meaning is not the way you have explained....think.
Let me state some comments for "fi qulubihim zayghun" in this verse. "Zaaghatil" absaar زَاغَتِ الْأَبْصَارُ has been used in 33:10 meaning eyes became distracted. In 53:17 it says about prophet مَا زَاغَ الْبَصَرُ وَمَا طَغَىٰ your sight has neither moved away from the truth nor has it crossed the limit. The Qur’an says in 61:5 alamma zaaghu azaghallahu qulubahum meaning when moved away from God’s path, then the law of God or nature made them lean towards that very path (to which they had deviated). To get the right guidance from the Qur’an, our eyes should be focused, the comprehension should be blank, that is, there should be no preconception. The right path is that no matter what our hearts and minds lean towards, we should never digress from the Qur’an; whatever the Qur’an says is haq (the truth) not what our leanings are; any one who goes to the Qur’an with preconceived ideas with the intention of getting confirmation of those ideas from the Qur’an, can never find the right guidance from the Qur’an.
May Allah guide us all to the right path
-
I am unable to edit......just to add one point......examples of very SEVERE distortion and perversion are literal understanding and explanation of "Hands of Allah", "Allah's face", "Allah's Throne being on water, etc. Even such corruption can be found in books of hadith due to such literal understanding. There is even a hadith in Bukahri stating Allah created Adam in HIS image!!!!!
-
I assert that this is no different to relying on modern Muslim theologians who claim allegories. I look forward to clear evidence for ancient Biblical understanding ideally supported by well documented ancient writings.
So for example, if Prophet Moses's rod became a snake (Hebrew - naw-khawsh: snake, serpent - Exodus 4:3) and this is how it was always understood by the People of the Book for generations, why did the Quran use a similar expression to describe the same narrative (Arabic: jannun - serpent, snake (27:10) thu'banun: serpent)?
Dear Brother Joseph, Salamun Alaikum,
For further consideration at your convenient time, and respecting your valuable time, I would like to mention hereunder couple of points for the above points so far I did not make any comments. Please consider this as an excercise for evaluating all possible probabitilies.
1. There is every possibility that narratives in christian scriptures are also stated allegorically and later generations took them in the literal sense (majority view has no basis when it comes to truth). So the usage of the same word for snake (Hebrew - naw-khawsh: snake, serpent - Exodus 4:3) is justified.
2. If the fact remains as the biblical narratives are also allegorically explained in Christian scriptures it is not necessary all those same narratives should have been literally explained in the Quran. There is a purpose why certain things are allegorically explained and it remains the same.
3. Now, a genuine question; In spite of the fact that the Christians and Jews “Understood” those narratives in their scriptures in the literal sense during prophet’s time, why the Quran does not clarify the real situation? This question has no substance due to the followings;
(a) It could be interpreted as God deliberately changing His way, sometimes allegorically explaining things and sometimes the same things are explained literally.
(b) The real situation still remains the same, things cannot be literally explained.
(c) It would have created confusion and it would not have served any purpose since the people themselves were demanding miracles from the prophet and the people were generally not physiologically mature to appreciate such theological aspect.
(d) Sufficient warnings have been given in the Quran about the fact of allegorical explanation of things and the danger of interpreting allegorical verses literally (3:7).
These are just my views.....appreciate your comments at your convenient time.
Allah bless you
-
Dear brother Optimist,
Salamun Alaikum
We can continue to surmise ad infinitum. With respect, you will have to provide clear evidence that the Christians at the time of the Quran's revelation understood these narratives as allegories.
We know how the Christians understood these narratives of the Bible before the time of the Quran. At the time of the revelation of the Quran, these thoughts were not corrected, but confirmed. This would have been the perfect time for the Quran to correct Biblical theology as it does in other areas. However, it did not.
I think this is not only a waste of your precious time, but also of the readership if we keep submitting 'possibilities' without any evidence whatsoever. I have already humbly concluded my discussion with you on this topic with respect so I do not see any mileage further in this discussion to ensue between us especially in the absence of concrete academic evidence.
I have laid out my contentions clearly and feel I have exhausted my perspective on this.
Once again, please accept my post as the last on this topic.
With respect.
Joseph.
-
We can continue to surmise ad infinitum. With respect, you will have to provide clear evidence that the Christians at the time of the Quran's revelation understood these narratives as allegories.
We know how the Christians understood these narratives of the Bible before the time of the Quran. At the time of the revelation of the Quran, these thoughts were not corrected, but confirmed. This would have been the perfect time for the Quran to correct Biblical theology as it does in other areas. However, it did not.
Wa'alaikumu'ssalam,
I will say "Confirming what is between your hands from the Book" mentioned in the Quran means confirming what were actually stated in the original scriptures....not their actual beliefs at the time of the Quran's revelation.....Therefore, what is actually required to be investigated is whether all these miracles were mentioned in the original scriptures were allegorical or not. I have come across in a google search many interesting such works from Christian scholars. One of such works I am reading (just out of curiosity) at the moment is; The miracles of Exodus By John Plkinghorne - A scientist’s discovery of the extraordinary natural causes of the biblical stories.
Even reading the Bible itself we can see many allegorical statements as such as,
Matthew 17:20 Jesus says quite clearly: For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
In John 2:19 the Jews demanded Jesus what miraculous sign can you show to prove your authority to do all this? Jesus answered them? Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days? The Jews replied, It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days??
Please notice a spiritual connection in the above statements rather than literal understanding...see how Jesus telling them with spiritual power even the people can do miracles like moving a mountain!!
Well, the only question someone can ask; why such literal understandings were not corrected by Quran (there is NO question of confirmation prevailing beliefs of Christians....what is confirmed by Quran is only what is mentioned in original scriptures...if these miracles are mentioned allegorically allegorical, if literally literal). The plausible explanation for not specifically correcting could be, Allah would be deviating from His ways by doing literal explanation of something which he had decided to explain allegorically, another plausible reason could be it would be impossible for literal explanation, also the reason could be, the issue is not something affecting the foundation of Deen, etc. Anyhow, such a question has no relevance here. It is like someone asked me recently why in Quran it was not specifically stated that many people will start to compile the hadiths of the prophet after prophet’s death and start to follow such hadiths, and if Allah had done so the present day Muslims would not have been under the trap of Shaythan!! (May be, If Allah had stated such a comment in this way it would not have been possible to preserve the Quran as we see today….the criminals would have caused corruptions in verses of Quran as well). Such questions have no relevance. One can ask such questions out of curiosity only.
Once again, please accept my post as the last on this topic.
With respect.
Joseph.
I respect your decision.....I do have lot of respect for you....more than you can imagine. Take care always
Salamun Alaikum
-
Salaam Optomist,
A lot of verses that you claim to be allegorical are in fact part of a bigger narrative. That is, when God is recalling an event in the past, we are conveyed a series of incidents and conversations which give us a fuller picture of what happened.
So I wonder then, when we read through the narratives, why an allegory would be inserted mid way for no reason.
This would throw the reader off because the Quran is narrating factually a whole scene to us where we are told that x said this and y replied,then this happened and then the story concludes.
I note your comments on G. Parvez's in depth work with Arabic. This is no mean feat and I hope that God rewards him for all his efforts InshAllah.
However, he would be better placed that most would you not agree, to be able to understand the context and nuances of the verses. He, because of his beliefs that miracles do not exist, seems to have pushed aside what is clearly being narrated.
The story of Prophet Moses for example, when he faces Pharoah and his magicians is an example of an event in history.The story starts from 7.103 :
'Then we sent after them (the messengers) Moses with Our signs to Pharaoh and his chiefs, but they disbelieved in them; so see what the end of the corrupters was.'
We can clearly see that a FACTUAL series of events is about to be relayed to us regarding the plight of Prophet Moses. Clearly depicted in Arabic, are conversations that ensued and incidents that occurred.
Now by saying that in between this, allegories are being introduced midway into the story for example when we are told that his staff turns into a serpent and his hand becomes white in response to Phaorah's challenge, is nonsensical. This is not contextually correct in this whole section (7.103 till 7.145)
I could argue that Pharoah's threat to chop off hands and feet on opposite sides is an allegory which really means that he will cut off the sustenance and family from those who deflect.
But in the context of the story, you would obviously say that he is literal in his statement.
We are not left in the dark regarding allegories. They do exist but they are presented clearly to the reader as such because in these verses God asks us to ponder and consider similitudes.
Otherwise we will have no way of discerning fact from fiction and everyone would be singing from a different hymn sheet.
-
Dear Truth Seeker, Salamun Alaikum
Let me respond to you by citing a beautiful verse from Quran;
And We never sent before you (O Muhammad) any of the Messengers but verily, they ate food and walked in the markets. (25:20)
The above verse contains a powerful message.....please THINK how Allah compares prophet with other messengers. The above verse contains very powerful message. Keeping this verse in mind, let us look into the verse you have quoted;
'Then we sent after them (the messengers) Moses with Our signs to Pharaoh and his chiefs, but they disbelieved in them; so see what the end of the corrupters was.'
A layman’s understanding from the above verse could be; Moses showed great signs like a live serpant swallowing faked serpants, and showed his hand producing light, but Pharoah and his cheifs disbelieved!
In fact, looking at the Quran you will see Quran is full of the monumental struggle which prophets had to do to succeed in their missions .
[But] do you think that you could enter paradise without having suffered like those [believers] who passed away before you? Misfortune and hardship befell them, and so shaken were they that the apostle, and the believers with him, would exclaim, "When will God's succour come?" Oh, verily, God's succour is [always] near! (2:214)
“Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them”(6:34)
“The fair promise of thy Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, because they had patience and constancy, and We levelled to the ground the great works and fine buildings which Pharaoh and his people erected (with such pride)”(7:137)
Sura ‘Araaf cites Moses’ people requesting Allah to “write for us good things in this life as well as in the hereafter.” Allah’s response was: “These (good things) are written for those who (are ‘muttaqeen) follow Allah’s laws.
Said Moses to his people: "Pray for help from Allah, and (wait) in patience and constancy: for the earth is Allah's, to give as a heritage to such of His servants as He pleaseth; and the end is (best) for the righteous. (7:128)
We can clearly see that a FACTUAL series of events is about to be relayed to us regarding the plight of Prophet Moses. Clearly depicted in Arabic, are conversations that ensued and incidents that occurred.
Now by saying that in between this, allegories are being introduced midway into the story for example when we are told that his staff turns into a serpent and his hand becomes white in response to Phaorah's challenge, is nonsensical. This is not contextually correct in this whole section (7.103 till 7.145)
I am not saying we will be doing a big crime in understanding allegorically explained miracles literally since the issue of miracles (understanding allegorical narratives like an Ant's speech and acting of as a real Ant's is not a major issue as litereally understanding narratives like Hands of Allah, face of Allah, etc). But it will make us fail to appreciate long, sustained, crushing battle that the previous prophets and his people had to undergo before success reached them (2:214). It will negate facts like Allah will never bring about a change in a nations conditions unless they change themselves. Suddently you start to view just a miraculous rod winning a battle against a mighty army. In fact those who strive in the path of Allah will have to undergo many struggles and painful experiences before success reach them;
“You will face war and killing, shortage of food, loss of life and property, damage to crops and orchards. But eventually, good news will come to the steadfast who constantly keep in view their target of replacing the wrong evil system with the right good one. They say” “We are devoted to this cause. Regardless of problems and difficulties, we will keep striving to achieve that goal by moving towards that target” (2 : 155-156).
The above success comes with Man’s own effort which bears fruit in a collective (social) form of life of a nation, not through any miracles from heaven. It is the message of the Quran.
-
Salaam,
I think that we can still appreciate the struggle that the prophets and messengers faced as humans in their endevour to convice others of the Truth as well as believing that God aided some by providing miracles. These were merely sent to further prove the existence of God beyond doubt once they saw His display of power. They would therefore have no excuse on the Day of Judgement.
God knew that the majority would disbelieve yet He still sent these 'signs' sometimes in the form of miracles and other times as a final warning before His punishment ensued.
If He then decided to put a stop to these signs when it came to the Quran it is clearly His perrogative. He is never unfair. Each generation had different ways of receiving the Truth.
We could question then why were all the people who disbelieved not destroyed when they had a messenger/s amongst them?
You would say that it is God's perrrogative. He always knows the conditon of a people and in what way they should receive the message.
-
salaam all,
Some translate this verse to mean birds were cut up and brought back alive, whilst others translate it as birds were trained/tamed and returned back to Abraham. In my view, the latter is the most likely translation based on the evidence.
Shakir And when Ibrahim said: My Lord! show me how Thou givest life to the dead, He said: What! and do you not believe? He said: Yes, but that my heart may be at ease. He said: Then take four of the birds, then train them to follow you, then place on every mountain a part of them, then call them, they will come to you flying; and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise.
Further reading:
http://aaiil.org/text/articles/bash/referencebirdsquran.shtml