Messages

[why]

Dear miracle114,

Salaam,

And I hope by the Qur'anic verses cited in support of the position held with regards the said Book you do appreciate it as from the Quran's own testimony and therefore answers your question 'why.'

Regards,
Athman.

[REFERENCE:]

Dear miracle114,

Salaam,

I hope Br. Joseph's response in the following link addresses your concern.

Regards,
Athman.

REFERENCE:

[1]. Alleged Contradiction in the Quran
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=371.0

[(1)]

Dear miracle114,

Salaam,

I find your question to be so general in the manner presented. However, to generally quickly suggest 5 of them among many others, I can say (1) maintaining one's own household well and guarding its welfare to one's utmost (proper housing, catering, education, morals, etc) (2) spending wealth in charity to the needy (3) construction of buildings meant for orphanages, worship (mosques) etc (4) funding community welfare schemes (e.g, paying water & electricity bills) (5) travelling around the world to designated places of religiously historical significance...etc.

Hopefully that helps.

Regards,
Athmani.

[Mother of Records]

Dear miracle114,

Salaam,

The Book in 6:38 is a register/ record within God's presence from which all Divine records/ messages including decrees and scriptures of God emanate. It is this same register referenced in 11:6. It is the 'Mother of Records' (ummul kitab) in 13:39 and 43:2-4, the 'Guarded Tablet' (lawhul mahfudh) in 85:21-22 and the 'Protected Register' (kitab maknun) in 56:78.

See a short article [1] below by Br. Joseph on this.

As to your question 'why,' I am not sure what you seek to understand.

Regards,
Athmani.

REFERENCE:

[1]. MOTHER OF THE BOOK (UMM-UL-KITAB)
http://quransmessage.com/articles/mother%20of%20book%20FM3.htm

[common purpose]

Dear miracle114,

Wa alaikum as-salam,

With respect, in the same response that brother Joseph has given with regards 'love is for Allah alone,' he has clarified about the connection made with the love for the Prophet (pbuh) in verses like 9:24 and 2:165 which is simply in 'common purpose' as in 3:31. See the excerpt below in the link shared.

"It is this 'common purpose' between God and his messenger that is often misunderstood and instead an unwarranted lean towards the 'personality' often ensues which results in nothing short of human reverence." [1]

In support of this view, I also share to you my comment on this which I gave in response to a similar query by yourself some years back.

"..the love, in purpose (in the absolute sense), for Allah, the Prophet and Allah's Cause (9:24), comes first. This is irrespective of the time in which a believer lives, contemporary or non-contemporary to the Prophet's time." [2]

As to how the love for God and subsequently for His Prophet(s) is expected to stay incomparable, I explained:

"Truth when realized, comes with it a great responsibility of upholding. Being conscious of this at the very best would actually exquisitely make a believer appreciate the exclusive role of firstly prioritizing the truth with which Islam comes with hence upholding that truth through obeying Allah and the Prophet, in such a manner explained above, be it against oneself, parents, etc.,4:135. It is in such a context of understanding at which the idea of the love of Allah and the Prophet overriding all can be acknowledged." [3]

I hope that helps.

Regards,
Athmani.

REFERENCES:

[1]. LOVE GOD ALONE
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=542

[2]. 7:158 and God asking mankind to follow the prophet for guidance.
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2473.msg12929#msg12929

[3]. Ibid

[lazy]

Dear Wakas,

You wrote:

"...but English doesn't really have grammatical gender."

True. However, that was simply to acknowledge and in line with my previous assertion '...is extremely common in Arabic and likewise in most languages in the world' for which an English example was propounded. As with the Arabic, to this stage, with all due respect, I am afraid I must confess that for you not to note even one, if not a dishonest one (which I hope is not), I find yours to actually be a lazy contention. The Qur'an also has similar instances in its narratives.

"...pronouns are used thousands of times in Quran..."

Sure. Thus, for you not to note even one, I must re-iterate: if not a dishonest one (which I hope is not), I find yours to actually be a lazy contention.

Again, I think I must demand contextual explanation of the relevant issue of contention in the verses from whoever seeks to depart from what the verses clearly say and an explanation of how the grammatical restriction pertaining usage of 'hu' or 'any pronoun' is derived.

"...thus checking viability of your position can be tested."

Again, I don't think I have to struggle to do anything in this based on the subjective assumptions someone posits as a standard.

"My approach is to apply a robust and ideally falsifiable methodology."

As much as the content in the link is appreciated, I find the above italicized hyperlink label/ tag quite subjective.

"I am happy for others to read and make up their own minds based on what we've discussed"

Me too. In addition, since I see no responses from you to the concerns I raise with regards your expectations and what I find as your inadequacies, nor any further input, kindly consider this as my last response to you on this matter in this thread. Thus far, I think my sentiments have been clear with regards the original issue of concern as the title of this thread.

Just for the record and readership, Qur'anic examples are cited below:

PRONOUN 'HU':

HU referring to 'consumption of their properties into your own'

"And give to the orphans their properties and do not substitute the defective [of your own] for the good [of theirs]. And do not consume their properties into your own. Indeed that (innahu) is ever a great sin." (Qur'an, Al-Baqarah 4:2)

See also 4:22 where HU refers to 'marrying women whom your fathers married'

PRONOUN 'HA':

HA referring to 'the Divine decree to the Sabbath breakers to become apes'

"And you had already known about those who transgressed among you concerning the sabbath, and We said to them, 'Be apes, despised.' And We made it (faja'alnaha) a deterrent punishment for those who were present and those who succeeded [them] and a lesson for those who fear Allah." (Qur'an, Al-Baqarah 2:65-66)

See also 22:32 where HA refers to 'veneration of the sacraments of God'

PROUNOUN 'HADHA'

HADHA referring to 'worshipping my Lord and your Lord'

"Indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. This (hadha) is the straight path." (Qur'an, Al-Ma'idah 3:51)

See also 6:153 where HADHA refers to the 'virtues outlined in previous verses 6:151-152'


PRONOUN 'DHALIKA'

DHAALIKA referring to 'God showing you His signs in the incident of resurrecting a dead body' in the verses 2:72-73

"So We said, 'Strike him with part of it.' Thus, does Allah bring the dead to life, and He shows you His signs that you might reason. Then your hearts became hardened after that (dhalika), being like stones or even harder..." (Qur'an, Al-Baqarah 2:73-74)

In addition, see 2:85 where DHALIKA refers to 'believing in part of the Scripture and disbelieving in part.' See also 2:178 where DHALIKA refers to 'a concession (tahfeef) which is also a mercy (rahmatun) from your Lord'


FINALLY:

For the PRONOUN 'HU' under discussion, as additional references to the usage of , the following verses are cited for one to verify that they depict similar occurrences/ instances: 2:282, 12:28, 51:23, 3:126 and 10:53.

I hope that helps.

Regards,
Athman.

[hu]

Dear Wakas,

Peace to you,

Kindly see below my replies to your comments in purple.

You wrote:

"...but it doesn't further your argument."

Yet you too don't. I do repeat: Why should it be a specific word?

I am quite baffled that you ignore the explicit Arabic text of 2:149 which clearly shows what the truth referred to by the masculine 'hu' in 'innahu' is, i.e, the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) was to incline to 'Masjid al-Haram' in direction. I am again surprised that this is taken to be 'things unmentioned' in context.

"I provided a simple way for you to demonstrate viability of your position."

I do repeat: I don't think I have to struggle to do anything in this based on the subjective assumptions someone posits as a standard.

"I think it's a very good suggestion since pronouns are used thousands of times in Quran."

I do repeat: I think I must demand contextual explanation of the relevant issue of contention in the verses from whoever seeks to depart from what the verses clearly say and an explanation of how the grammatical restriction pertaining usage of 'hu' or 'any pronoun' is derived.

"..but the feminine "ha" obviously refers to the closest preceding feminine noun which is "salat"."

I do repeat: I think I must demand contextual explanation of the relevant issue of contention in the verses from whoever seeks to depart from what the verses clearly say.

To clarify, I find verse 2:45 to focus on the act of 'seeking help' (ista'inu) whether it be via prayer (swalat) or patience (swabr). That is actually 'a great thing' (kabiratun) save for the devout. To me, to dissect the first part of the verse into two and connect the second part of the verse to the second of the two sections is to exhibit naivety in understanding syntax. Such an interpretation as a result pronounces 'a great thing' (kabiratun) to the non-devout the 'seeking of help' (ista'inu) via prayer (swalat) but not the 'seeking of help' (ista'inu) through patience (swabr).

"Pronouns referring to the closest preceding noun is extremely common in Arabic..."

True. However, I am afraid to say that unfortunately this is not a rule. Again, I think I must demand contextual explanation of the relevant issue of contention in the verses from whoever seeks to depart from what the verses clearly say. I do add; a pronoun referring to a preceding concept or action is extremely common in Arabic and likewise in most languages in the world.

For example: Brush your teeth in the morning and before you go to bed. This should be your daily routine.

Action (noun): brushing your teeth
Referencing particle (pronoun): this

Now, to connect the demonstrative pronoun 'this' in the above example to the immediate preceding noun 'bed' is in my view to exhibit naivety in understanding syntax.

Regards,
Athman.

[hu]

Dear Wakas,

I am quite baffled that you ignore the explicit Arabic text of 2:149 which clearly shows what the truth referred to by the masculine 'hu' in 'innahu' is, i.e, the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) was to incline to 'Masjid al-Haram' in direction. I am again surprised that this is taken to be 'things unmentioned.'

I am even more surprised that this is based on the premise that pronouns such as the masculine 'hu' can't refer to concepts/ideas/situation which are themselves 'nouns.' For instance, an inclination to a former Qibla with the Prophet (pbuh) by his followers is deemed by the Qur'an to be 'a great thing' - kabiratan (2:143), a feminine 'noun.' The Qur'an also deems the 'seeking of help' (ista'inu) a feminine 'concept' (kabiratun) more so using the feminine 'ha' to refer to it in 2:45 (wa innaha).

You write:

"...thus I would imagine if you struggle to find even one you will have to reject your view."

I don't think I have to struggle to do anything in this based on the subjective assumptions someone posits as a standard. I think I must demand contextual explanation of the relevant issue of contention in the verses from whoever seeks to depart from what the verses clearly say and an explanation of how the grammatical restriction pertaining usage of 'hu' or 'any pronoun' is derived.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Regards,
Athman.

[it]

Dear Wakas,

"To clarify what word is the "it" referring to in 2:144, 2:146, 2:149?"

Why should it be a specific word. I do repeat: 'From the context of verse 2:146, 'it' is the fact that to each (ummah) was a focal prayer point (wijhatun) to turn to (2:148).' This is different from saying that the 'it' refers to the noun 'wijhatun' which is not my claim.

I do assert that the fact that the followers of the Prophet (pbuh) under Quranic guidance had a right to their own 'Qibla' or 'wijha' (2:148) is what was clearly known by those People of the Book. It is this fact that some of them were bent on obfuscating.

I hope that clarifies.

Regards,
Athman.

[it]

Dear Wakas,

Peace to you,

You remarked:

"It is more accurate to say assertions will be made."

I personally don't dispute this.

"There are further issues, e.g. what does the "it" refer to in these verses?
2:144 ... and indeed those who have been given the writ/decree know that it is the truth from their Lord.
2:146 ...Those to whom We have given the decree/writ recognise it like they recognise their sons"

From the context of verse 2:146, 'it' is the fact that to each (ummah) was a focal prayer point (wijhatun) to turn to (2:148). This was the truth (2:147) the People of the Book knew (2:144) with certainty (2:146) which some of them inclined to obfuscate (2:146). This is the same truth confirmed by the next verse 2:149.

Regards,
Athman.

[1st Qibla change]

Dear Wakas,

As salaam alaikum,

If you note the whole discourse by brother Joseph with regards Qibla change, it is well summarized in his final thoughts as:

"Two Qibla changes are noted from the Quranic verses."

This should be clear to you in his exposition.

"It has been suggested in the above article that the original Qibla was indeed the Makkan sanctuary (the Ka'ba). This was later changed for the reasons cited by verse 2:143 to possibly a location in the Holy Lands such as Jerusalem which was the centre of devotion for the people of the previous scriptures."

This is the 1st Qibla change which is also well elaborated in Joseph's exposition in the article. Therefore, accordingly, verse 2:142 is linked to verse 2:143 talking of the 1st Qibla change both of which have no connection with verses 2:144 and 2:145 which otherwise talk of the 2nd Qibla change.

"The second Qibla change was a reversion back to the Ka'ba from the Holy Lands."

As already noted above, in Joseph's article, this is the subject of verses 2:144 and 2:145 and not 2:142 nor 2:143. This is regardless of the particle 'sa' (denoting future) in 2:142 which you seem to connect with the instruction in 2:144 to the Prophet (pbuh) to another Qibla hence implying a single Qibla change from verses 2:142 to 2:144.

Consequently, I find your analysis of verses 2:142-145 to yield an understanding of them being a block unit of verses that discuss a single Qibla change from one direction (Qibla) to another (Qibla). On the other hand, Joseph's article and analysis of the relevant verses enshrines the idea of two Qibla changes.

Therefore, points 3) and 4) in your article and as noted above are in agreement with Joseph's take on the relevant verses. As with point 2), there is no conflict in brother Joseph's view. In his view, while it was 'a great thing' (kabiratan) except for the God guided, this pertained the first Qibla change. However, what would please the Prophet (pbuh) in 2:144 had to do with the second Qibla change and not the first one that had proven 'a great thing' except for the God guided.

Point 1) on the other hand is a matter of difference in interpretation. While you link 2:142 to 2:144 owing to the particle 'sa' in 2:142, brother Joseph doesn't link the two verses and instead already notes a change in 2:142 in connection with 2:143 hence reading 2:144 as introducing another Qibla change. As a result, the 'great thing' to you becomes the original Qibla while for brother Joseph, it pertains the new Qibla in the first Qibla change or the first Qibla change itself.

I hope that will at least give you hint as to where to start with the contentions you have.

Regards,
Athman.

[believed]

Dear ibn_a,

Salaam,

Kindly see below my responses to your comments in purple:

You wrote:

"Not sure how you compare those who believe in the numerical structure of the Quran to  people who disbelieve in Allah and his messenger(pbuh)  / kafaru bi Allah wa rasulihi (Quran 9:54)"

Dear brother, you are simply misrepresenting my position. Respectfully, I am not comparing any specific groups here. I simply responded to your concern which I re-quote here part of it: "...I don't think that those who disbelieve bother at all about their number, be it 19 or whatever number as they do not believe that the Quran is from God." In response, I cited verse 9:54 which is a Qur'anic assertion that among those who confessed to have 'believed' from Prophet Muhammad's (a.s) followers, some were actually 'disbelievers.' To elaborate and as food for thought, why would those who 'kafaru billahi wa birasulihi' approach prayer (ya'tuna swalata) in whatever manner? Why would they give charity (yunfiquna)? Why would they swear to be part of the Prophet's followers (9:56)? Why would they criticize the Prophet with regards charity (sadaqah) - 9:58? The only answer to all these questions as clearly depicted by the context is that they were part of the Prophet's congregation as professing believers.

"Not sure how you came to the asumption that interpreting a verse = denying a verse."

You are again misrepresenting what I wrote. I wrote "...if you don't see it as a 'fitna' to those who 'disbelieve,' then that is denying a clear Qur'anic verse." That was simply reproducing your own statement which I re-quote: "I do not see how being informed about their number/iddatahum would be a fitna /trial/confusion/test for those who disbelieve."

"Even if the interpretation could be wrong."

I respectfully don't find it a case of interpretation rather one where there's a clear conditional denial of an assertion by the Qur'an.

"I would think that this was clear when i said:

Unless their number/iddatahum refers to a numerical structure of the Quran which disturbs / confuses those who disbelieve and increases the faith of those who believe."

I repeat: "From verse 74:31, there's nothing that tells one that 'their number' (iddatahum - 19) is linked to a structure of the Qur'an nor that it should be extrapolated to some Qur'anic numerology. To me, that sounds like a great questionable leap in assumption into sheer fanaticism with numbers. After all, the verse concludes by asserting that none knows God's agents/ armies (junud) but God. It still expects our understanding that 'disbelievers' will fuss around this 'designated figure' of angels guarding 'saqar' being 19 and not them being confused about it (iddat - 19) being established within the Qur'anic structure."

"In my understanding it makes more sense being related to the numerical structure of the Quran in addition of the number of angels guarding hell being 19  rather than that what bothers those who disbelieve is just because the number of angels guarding hell is 19"

I entirely don't agree with this approach. I can't bet the truth or clarity of the message of a particular Qur'anic verse on simply personal sense-making based on an obscure extrapolation of an isolated Qur'anic phrase. How is the leap made from 'over it (hell) are nineteen (angels)' to 'numerical structure of the Quran' just so that a verse makes sense? Wouldn't such an approach sanction freedom to the reader of the Qur'an to find any sense-making interpretation despite whether it is even hinted in context? Of course, disbelievers will fuss around this 'designated figure' of angels guarding 'saqar' being 19. This appears to be the expectation in verse 74:31 as it is asserted that none knows God's agents/ armies (junud) but God. Whether you are ready to accept this as the verse's expectation is a prerogative of yours.

"When those who disbelieve are exposed to the the numerical structure of the Quran,
they either consider this and it could be a way to be guided or they discard it and it could be a way to go astray."

Respectfully, there's no such elaboration in verse 74:31 of disbelievers going astray or them being guided aright by discarding or pursuing the notion of an alleged Qur'anic 'numerical structure' respectively. The term 'kadhalika' translates to 'thus/ that way' which alludes to a preceding exemplary scenario. From the foregoing narrative of verse 74:31, it is clear that true believers and those among people of the Book shall be guided harboring no doubts having been strengthened in belief and having attained certainty respectively. It is also clear that 'those in whose hearts is disease' and 'disbelievers' shall go astray by seeking to delve into the parable of 'nineteen (19) angels over saqar' asking why it is propounded. Thus, God leads astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills.

"Biside there being 19 angels guarding hell, a purpose was assigned to this number
jalnaa iddatahum /made their number

Nowhere did I say that it is 'insignificant'."

Nor did I say that you said it is insignificant. You again miss the point. In my opinion, pursuing an interpretation of 74:31 just because a reason for the citation of the parable has been cited simply portrays a great significance held to that parable by the one pursuing it. Otherwise, I would expect an individual to also pursue other parables cited in other verses regardless if a reason has been cited. Not doing so pronounces such parables insignificant in comparison to that of 74:31 in my opinion. Appealing to a cited reason in 74:31 is still inconclusive. As I have remarked: we do not however have datum to pursue it though we can easily relate to the message being shared in each of those parables cited.

"There is no reason to exclude the Quran from this, especially when the context is about "the message of their Lord"."

I didn't exclude the Qur'an. The term 'everything' includes the Qur'an, the Gospel, the Torah, the Ketuvim and all possible Scriptures of God. It excludes none of God's creation. Rather, in your perspective, why should we single out the pursuit specifically on the Qur'an based on an isolated interpretation of verse 74:31?

"I do not see how you came to the conclusion that interpreting a verse = not accepting matters of ghayb."

Respectfully, you appear to consistently misrepresent my comments. If you won't mind, can you please show me where I made such an equation. I repeat: "I don't expect a true believer to gloss over its interpretation. Rather, I expect them to accept matters of 'ghayb' and remain content with the level of detail shared by the Qur'an."

"Why didn't you remain content with the level of detail shared by the Qur'an i.e.
(19 angels over 'saqar') rather than explaining that it exposes the disbelievers etc..."

Respectfully, I didn't explain anything. If you can't simply accept what verse 74:31 alludes to with regards leading those 'diseased at heart' and 'disbelievers' astray hence exposing them among professing believers as also ratified by 9:84ff then I don't think you can accept any view that negates your position regardless if it is derived within context.

"From your replies you seem to know and explain why their number/ iddatahum is a fitna for those who disbelieve"

With all due respect, I didn't explain anything beyond what I find as my sticking to the context of the verse and the message clearly imparted. As to why 'iddatahum' is a fitna to the disbelievers, yes, I know the reason. I repeat: the phrase 'kadhalika yudhwilu Allahu man yashau wayahdi man yasha' answers your original question which was 'why' and it is the same response which I gave as shared by the verse itself.

"and it seems also that you have identified those who disbelieve/alladhiena kafaru and explained why it/what increases the faith of those who believe and leave no doubt and cerainty for the People of the Book and the believers."

I repeat: "I didn't explain anything beyond what I find as my sticking to the context of the verse and the message clearly imparted." In context of the verse, yes, I did identify those in whose hearts is a disease or disbelievers to be those who will fuss around this 'designated figure' of angels guarding 'saqar' being 19 as expected by the verse itself. It is purely an expectation within context - no extrapolation.

"But when you say that 74:31 is a mutashabihaat verse and not to be pursued, then it would be more logical to abstain from trying to explain this verse, as you cannot be sure about your explanation nor can you be sure that explanation of others are wrong."

Dear brother, I repeat: "I didn't explain anything beyond what I find as my sticking to the context of the verse and the message clearly imparted." It is as if you see what I do not intend to pass across as a sentiment. To reiterate, such citations of some particulars of the Hereafter (e.g, 19 angels over saqar) form part of the 'mutashabihat' verses to us since they are matters of 'ghayb' never to be pursued to reach a vivid detailed explanation. To stay true to the message, I didn't explain the 19 angels over saqar nor did I pursue any explanation but rather accepted it as knowledge the details of which remain within God's reach as asserted by the verse itself.

"In my opinion 3) makes most sense, and of course to each their own understanding."

I don't have any problem with what you personally believe nor what you are ready to accept as truth. To be precise, I simply responded to your original question which I recognize that you have acknowledged. It is you who brought the notion of 'over it are nineteen' as being related to a numerical structure of the Qur'an. I also observe that you have misrepresented or rather misconstrued many of my previous comments to yours. Kindly do take your time to understand what is being shared before responding.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Regards,
Athman.

[disbelievers]

Dear ibn_a,

Salaam,

Kindly see below my responses to some of your comments the rest of which I find Br. Hamzeh to have quite well responded to.

You wrote:

"I do not see how being informed about their number/iddatahum would be a fitna /trial/confusion/test for those who disbelieve, I don't think that those who disbelieve bother at all about their number, be it 19 or whatever number as they do not believe that the Quran is from God."

In recognition of such an intimation by the Qur'an in 74:31, I wrote: "By such a method, 'disbelievers' and those 'diseased at heart' shall be exposed even among those who call themselves believers." This is in agreeing with the Qur'anic recognition that even among those who confessed to have 'believed' among Prophet Muhammad's (a.s) followers, some were 'disbelievers.' See verses 9:54ff attesting to this.

In addition, in your view, you don't see how a 'fitna' arises with the 'disbelievers' with regards to the 'iddatahum' in 74:31. Firstly, it should be noted that verse 74:31 asserts that the portrayal of 'their number' is not for any other purpose but to be a 'fitna' to those who 'reject' (kafaru). Therefore, if you don't see it as a 'fitna' to those who 'disbelieve,' then that is denying a clear Qur'anic verse. I don't think you intentionally advocate for this.

Secondly, would you please share your view about that part of the verse. It is easier for me to deal with your interpretation of 74:31 with regards the 'iddat' being a 'fitna' to 'disbelievers' rather than defending the clear assertion in the verse that it is only but a 'fitna' to those who disbelieve.

"Nor do I see how the information about their number does increase the faith of those who believe."

Brother Hamzeh has shared a possible explanation. Again, can you please share yours so that we can deal with that rather than defending the clear assertion in the verse that it does increase the faith of those who believe.

"Unless their number/iddatahum  refers to a numerical structure of the Quran which disturbs / confuses those who disbelieve and increases the faith of those who believe."

From verse 74:31, there's nothing that tells one that 'their number' (iddatahum - 19) is linked to a structure of the Qur'an nor that it should be extrapolated to some Qur'anic numerology. To me, that sounds like a great questionable leap in assumption into sheer fanaticism with numbers. After all, the verse concludes by asserting that none knows God's agents/ armies (junud) but God. It still expects our understanding that 'disbelievers' will fuss around this 'designated figure' of angels guarding 'saqar' being 19 and not them being confused about it (iddat - 19) being established within the Qur'anic structure.

"It can be a way to guide or to go astray  kathalika yudillu Allahu man yashao wayahdee man yashao  (74:31)"

Now this answers your original question which was 'why', and it is the same response which I gave as shared by the verse itself. See the first paragraph of my first response. I guess now you are probing into the likelihood of 'how.' Would you please clarify.

"As believers in the Quran, we accept this information, but there is no other purose mentioned for these numbers like in Quran 74:31  and We have made their number... / wama ja'alna iddatahum..."

I do concur. However, just because the purpose of the 'iddatahum' has been cited in 74:31 does not give us reason to pursue it to an obscure interpretation which is not even hinted in the verse. Similarly, just because the purpose of the 'numerical figures' in other verses is not cited for our knowledge does not make it insignificant. We do not however have datum to pursue it anyway though we can easily relate to the message being shared.

"See also this verse that seems to refer to a numerical structure of the Quran; 72:28 --> count of everything by number, concerning   "the message of their Lord"."

Respectfully, verse 72:28 does not allude to a numerical structure of the Qur'an per se. God 'having had tallied everything in numbers' does not equate to the Qur'an having a numerical structure. The tallying in number ('adada) as in 72:28 is not necessarily in connection with the Qur'an but with everything in nature having been proportioned in precise measurements/ numbers.

"Quran 3:7 seems about bad intention ibtigha alfitna and lack of objectivity and desire fi quluobihim zaygun about the mutashabihaat verses"

I don't dispute this. I can't also entirely be sure of the intention of one when they seek to interpret something of 'ghayb' (19 angels over 'saqar') hence I can't judge them either. However, as far as the Qur'anic guidance on this is concerned, I don't expect a true believer to gloss over its interpretation. Rather, I expect them to accept matters of 'ghayb' and remain content with the level of detail shared by the Qur'an.

"Quran 2:26 seems like a response to a questioning about what is or not appropriate according to their desire to be given as an example  mada arada Allah bihada mathalan."

In both verses 2:26 and 74:31, the narratives seem to be presented in context of matters of the Hereafter. While verse 74:31 touches on guards over 'saqar,' verse 2:26 in context with verse 2:25 touch on similitudes of the particulars of 'Jannah' with some worldly semblance. Thus, such citations of some particulars of the Hereafter are just made for us to relate given our worldly limitation and not for us to ask "madha arada Allahu bi-hadha mathala." They are matters of 'ghayb' never to be pursued to reach a vivid detailed explanation. They form part of the 'mutashabihat' verses to us.

I hope that clarifies.

Regards,
Athman.

Wa alaikum assalam ibn_a,

You are most welcome.

Dear Hamzeh,

Thanks for your elaborate input with complementary points to what I shared especially the following which goes at the heart of the very question asked.

"The question as to exactly why their number is a trial/stumbling block/confusion for those who disbelieve? Thats the answer right there. God only mentioned/appointed their fixed number only that it maybe a confusion to those who disbelieve and that seems to be the only reason He mentioned the number of Guardians over it."

Athman.

[the count of angels (nineteen - 19)]

Dear ibn_a,

Wa alaikumus salaam,

The reason behind 'the count of angels (nineteen - 19)' being a fitna to the disbelievers is stated in the same passage towards the end of the verse (74:31), that is: thus God leads astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. A parable even that of something as tiny as a gnat can be propounded for the sole purpose of: leading many astray and guiding many astray thereby (2:26). It is the character of true believers to accept it as truth from God (2:285) by which they are guided.

On the other hand, those who are 'defiantly disobedient' (fasiqun) will reject (yakfur) even the clearest of signs (2:99), by which they may be deluded further into either speculation of an interpretation - ibtigha-a ta'wil (3:7) or ultimate denial of the same (2:26). In this case, the knowledge ('ilm) or details surrounding such a 'designated count' (iddat) or even God's agents/ armies (junud) in general is only known to God (74:31). Thus, it is only God who can give a possible interpretation where necessary - wama ya'lamu ta'wilahu illa Allah (3:7).

A similar 'categorical count' (iddat) is again mentioned in 69:17 for angels (malaku) who will carry the Throne of the Lord that Day as being eight - 8. As believers (2:26) and those endowed with understanding (ulul albab) 'recollecting upon' the Qur'anic narratives (yadhakkaru), we believe in such a Qur'anic assertion from our Lord (3:7) as certain knowledge an interpretation of which we attribute only to Him (3:7). If in any way it is expressed elsewhere in the Qur'an in some other manner in no unclear terms, then we pursue that as God's interpretation/ explanation (ta'wila Allah). If not, we steer clear of eliciting finer details and simply accept it as truth the details of which we believe to be within God's certain knowledge.

In the main, verse 74:31 accesses the real meaning and purpose of a trial (fitna) which by way of awakening the power to exercise volition, has a potential of ascertaining the degree to which a person is good. True believers are expected to accept statements of truth from God (2:185) and as such, they will be tested (yaftanun) to ascertain such a sincere submission to truth (29:2-3). By such a method, 'disbelievers' and those 'diseased at heart' shall be exposed even among those who call themselves believers. However, true believers will accept it as truth from their Lord increasing them their faith while it will ascertain the knowledge of the People of the Book regarding the subject at hand. No doubts shall be harbored in the minds of these two. As such, God would have led astray the one bent on that road (disbelievers and those diseased at heart) while He would have guided the believers and those sincere truth seekers among the People of the Book.

I hope that helps.

Regards,
Athman.