Messages

91

General Discussions / Re: The difference between 2nd person plural and 3rd person plural is arbitrary?

« on: April 05, 2018, 11:51:45 PM »

Salaamun alaikum,

Dear Br. salam,

Notwithstanding the input by Br. Hamzeh and Duster above, let me try address what the author of that article in the link above claims.

Without touching on the historical aspect of Masjidul Haram as depicted by the author of the article, the order of the events associated with it as appears in the Qur’an, nor the analogies proffered by the author together with the claimed original significance and claimed binding spiritual significance till now, I would first find strange why the author opts/fails not to show the seemingly very far-fetched conclusion that the Masjidul haram was ultimately destroyed, an idea which seems to be at the crux of what forms the basis of the whole discourse.

Apart from 7:19, in which is a 2nd person dual imperative occurrence of the form 1 verb ‘qaraba,’ the other instances given are rightly identified as being of 2nd person plural bar 9:28 which is 3rd person plural imperative and which forms the subject of the article. In my opinion, as regards the 11 instances of the verb form 1 ‘qaraba’ given in the article, the author seems to bet the correct construct of the verb in 9:28 based on similarity of appearance elsewhere in the Qur’an, in this case, within the other 10 occurrences. He expects the ‘qaraba’ imperative verb of 9:28 to be structured in a similar manner to those in the other instances due to an arbitrary majority 2nd person plural occurrence of the verb ‘qaraba’ in those 11 sample Qur'anic instances cited, and which would assumedly be an odd/minor occurrence. In my opinion, this is unwarranted.

While the other 10 citations address 2nd person audiences, the address of 9:28 as regards the verb ‘qaraba’ in its given construct is clearly 3rd person audience - (al-mushrikuun). This is clear especially considering the next word ‘najasun’ - literally impure, used in reference to those idolators. Thus, being ‘najasun,’ they were not to approach the Sacred Mosque as from the following year. This can also be supported by 9:17 which the author also cites as a reference. The whole narrative in those verses of chapter 9 make this clear.

The statement, ‘...an arbitrary choice in any case and not one intrinsic to the original unadorned text...’ seems not to acknowledge the fact that any diacritical marks made on the Qur’an for purposes of clarification and proper pronunciation are guided by the Oral transmission of the Qur’an, hence, not arbitrary.

The claim that the 2 dots above the stem are marks distinguishing ‘ta’ from ‘ya’ actually binds. The 2 dots above the stem are necessary for ‘ta’ to be ‘ta’ otherwise one would be inclined to assume it a ‘ya.’ On the other hand, a ‘ya’ can either be identified by those 2 dots below the stem or the unadorned stem - omitting the 2 dots altogether. This is necessary for a non-Arab as well as it is for an Arab. Hence, there’s a difference between those essential marks for an Arabic letter identity and diacritical marks which can also include vowels and which can be unnecessary for an Arab or one well versed with the language.

Apart from the specific term contended by the author, ‘yaqrabu,’ the author fails to see that he also has to apocopate the ‘him’ in ‘a’mihim,’ (year of theirs) the 7th term in precedence from ‘yaqrabu’ in that verse, to ‘kum’ for ‘a’mikum’ (year of yours). That is, ‘do not approach Masjidul haram after this year of yours.’ Rather, since ‘a’mihim’ addresses ‘them’ - idolators, (this is ‘their’ last year) the preceding verb ought to still be addressing them - they should not approach (fala yaqrabu) (...) after this year of theirs (ba'da 'amihim), 9:28 - this is their last year.

Hopefully that somehow helps.


Regards,
Athman.

92

Islamic Duties / Re: Pertaining to Marriage

« on: April 05, 2018, 03:26:26 PM »

Dear Br. Duster,

Peace,

I hope you would agree with me that marriage, being a serious binding covenant between two parties, entails much that is first put into place prior to the point of its pronouncement. With a view to enter into a contract that would last one’s lifetime, I find it that to the point of its pronouncement, the contract legally binds the couple and is valid, with all the necessary deliberations mutually set clear.

You shared:

A contract is meaningless if it is not carried out.

To the point of the marriage pronouncement, with our case above where dowry was partly given, respectfully, I don’t actually grasp the essence of ‘if it is not carried out.’ On the other hand, in my humble opinion, a ‘vow’ in the context of marriage pronouncement is literally accepted as a formal agreement, ceteris paribus, the contract would be assumed binding and valid.


Regards,
Athman.

93

Islamic Duties / Re: Pertaining to Marriage

« on: April 04, 2018, 06:20:40 PM »

Dear Br. Duster,

Peace,

Thanks for your input above. I do agree that marriage is a process and one is not expected to set out to create just a ‘partial’ marital bond as Br. Joseph states in the thread above. However, I understand ‘full’ or ‘partial’ marital bonds as terms we refer to those statuses of a marriage situation that come about as a result of attainment or lack of attainment of some expected/required reservations, especially when considering a consensual annulment of the bond.

On the other hand, I see a ‘solemn covenant’ - meethaqan galedhan (4:21) to be established at the point of pronouncement of marriage. To the effect, with 2:234 and 2:240, I don’t see ‘yadharuna azwajan’ as necessarily widows who have undergone a whole marriage process but essentially those formerly having been wedded. The restrictive 2 conditions of marriage consummation and dowry obligation are neither mentioned in the above verses though they do find address with the divorce case (2:237, 33:49). This is despite that particular discourse of chapter 2 addressing both scenarios – ‘divorce’ and ‘widowhood.’

Therefore, in an effort to get the best deduction (39:18, 39:55) as you suggest, I see it possible importing the wisdom imparted by the divorce case especially with regards the 2 conditions above. On the other hand, with no specific address to the 2 conditions by the Qur’anic verses dealing with the ‘widowhood’ case, and considering it is a non-consensual inevitable termination of the marriage by death, I find it a different scenario to be approached somehow differently.

You shared:

‘Its like a man falling dead during the Nikaah process or straight after he makes his vows... the marriage isn't complete until consummation’

I think this is a somehow similar case though remotely acute as compared to the one above. With regards completeness of marriage, I do hope you would appreciate my understanding of a ‘solemn covenant’ above especially as regards ‘when’ it is legally valid, as contrasted to ‘full’ & ‘partial’ marital bond statuses which seem to considered when consensually annulling a marriage.

Looking forward to further insights into the matter.


Regards,
Athman.

94

General Discussions / Re: Program of Creation of Man on Earth, in light of Quran.

« on: April 02, 2018, 02:39:57 PM »

Dear Br. niaz,

Salaam,

Kindly see my comments to your italicized sentiments below.

And yes, we were destined to be here, but the pre-destination does not contradict the fact that we are here as a consequence of the original sin. I don't know if you are suggesting that we are not here as a result of it. The pharaoh was predestined to drown in the sea, but his drowning was also a consequence of his tyrannical ways he led his life on earth.

In my humble opinion, I don't see Adam's sin the reason why we are all here on Planet Earth, rather it was Allah's plan that we be here in the first place (2:30) to test us (29:2-3) continuously to establish those faithful and steadfast as contrasted to those disbelievers and faithless (47:31, 67:2). All this also having some basis in 33:72 in the first place, and not due to Adam's sin. On the other hand, Adam and his spouse's misconduct should not have any bearing on us (2:134). In the main, as Bani Adam, we were meant to be here in our current statii and with the trials we do encounter in our lives, to establish our true resolve and be judged after an appointed term. About Pharaoh and his fate, I  trust that you would acknowledge the difference between a case where actions are put forth as a result of free-will and choice amounting to a deserved consequence and a case of Allah's original plan in ordaining something, as mentioned in the Qur'an. While the former has an attached individual's accountability apart from Allah's knowledge of it and its decree, the latter is attached to no one except Allah, His independent plan, with none else being there in the 'beginning' except Himself.

Then all three accounts proceed to detail the logical sequence of events, starting from our creation, and  God's commandment to the angels to acknowledge or honor us for the intellectual capabilities God bestowed upon us ....

This should not form the basis for our being on earth though. The misconduct of our progenitors here on earth just incurred them some degradation of their high status, promised and granted after being created, from that privileged status of felicity to a lower one. Br. Joseph's article summarizes this.

(0) Preface (2:30, 7:10, 20:115), introducing God's plan to place a substitute or successor on the land/earth, and the result: that Adam broke God's covenant under the influence of satan; and that we are established upon the earth [fulfilled through events (3) or (4) below].
(1) Creation of Adam and each of us (7:11), God's command to the angels, and the disobedience and fall of satan
(2) Dwelling of Adam/wife in paradise and the commandment of the tree
(3) Satan tricking Adam/wife into breaking the commandment of the tree.
(4) The expulsion of Adam/wife and satan, with "all of you" (addressing the audience of the Quran) to another place - the earth - as a temporary abode.
(5) Then during his earthly life, Adam receives words/guidance from God; and God accepts Adam's repentance.
(6) The purpose of our temporary existence here on this on earth, outlined for the rest of us ("all of you" ... the audience of the Quran) ...that we will receive guidance from God, and whoever among us will follow God's guidance has nothing to fear or grieve. If we turn to God, our repentance will be accepted, just as Adam's was.And if we reject/ignore God's reminder/proofs when it comes to us, we will end up among those who are ignored on the Day of Judgement.
This is the best answer we have to the deepest and most fundamental question in the mind of every human ... why are we here on earth? what is the purpose of our existence here? And this is a logical sequence - (4) was a consequence of (3), and (5) the atonement (tawba) for what happened in (3). If we don't read it as a simple and logical narrative, and break it up and make conclusions that are contradictory to this narrative, the message is lost. You have clarified that you do not have 'a pre-conceived assumption to conflate some theological perspective nor a world-wide or scientific view ...', but I failed to see the underlying reason to dispute or offer a counter narrative to the simple, logical, narration of events.

I hope my response above addresses this issue of our purpose on earth (6:165) as opposed to an 'Original Sin' concept propounded by you, which is outrightly negated by 2:134.

I admit I would have come across as opinionated .... my goal was not to badger, but to communicate my thoughts, and highlight the gaps in our perspectives. This has been an interesting and enlightening discussion, and thanks to you for that.

Thanks brother for your insights, I appreciate too. However, I think I respectfully have to ask you that you accept this as my last response to you on this matter. I would recommend that you propound a dedicated critique on Br. Joseph's article above in a separate thread if you have any contentions against it, that is if you feel that's Okay with you. I may as well comment from there if need be. This is to avoid this thread appearing indefinitely protracted into multiple topics. Personally, I do concur with Br. Joseph's perspective in the article as far as the Qur'an is concerned.

Pertaining the subject matter of this thread, I think we both have presented our cases above. We may just agree to disagree on some points.

Regards,
Athman.

95

General Discussions / Re: Program of Creation of Man on Earth, in light of Quran.

« on: March 31, 2018, 06:30:13 PM »

Br. niaz,

Salaamun Alaikum,

Dear brother, it is not my intention to make you agree to my perspective nor somebody else’s. I am humbly parting with my view as regards the subject of this thread, trying as much possible to align my opinions to the best meaning I can get from the Qur’anic verses and as consistent possible. Telling you to ‘reconsider’ the final thoughts of Br. Joseph’s article is just because personally, I feel that you seem to cherry-pick some statements made therein, others as claimed premise of the article, and others overlooking their context. Rather, the ‘Final Thoughts’ stand at a better position to summarize the discourse. To reconsider your Qur’anic citations is just so that you don’t feel I’m making you switch topics nor insinuating some orthogonal discussions, rather addressing your supporting references which seem to be addressed somewhere else in detail.

I agree with your understanding of considering a 7th Century Arabian context - as regards placing certain Qur’anic extracts in their appropriate context, and refining our understanding of certain concepts and terminologies. I’m just trying to be cautious not to ‘redefine’ terms or render their ‘essential’ purport vague. In my humble opinion, if not how a concept is used as reiterated in some of the Qur’anic discourses, the classical understanding would better place the ‘essence’ of such a concept at its appropriate context - the essence.

With ‘Adam’s destined abode,’ referring you to the article is not intended necessarily to be of much help somehow as you would expect, but because I personally feel that your arguments are addressed therein and because you continuously assert that ‘no reference’ is made to the effect, I still have to refer you to the same article [1].

Respectfully Br. niaz, I haven’t seen any unequivocal Qur’anic support you have given hitherto to support your conclusive assertion that some prior ‘sinning’ had to take place before  Adam could be ‘transported’ to their ‘destined abode’ in the first place (2:30). As stated in the article, ‘there is no disconnect in the theme of the Quranic narrative and therefore there is no reason to assume that the location has changed.’ (2:30-35) About ‘what we need to accept,’ I don’t think there’s any extrapolation of interpretation made whatsoever but the Qur’anic narrative is made use of as appears in the Qur’an, as regards an advanced theme and plot.

Personally, I see the discourse made as per the Qur’anic narrative and not a pre-conceived assumption to conflate some theological perspective nor a world-wide or scientific view like that of evolution.

Regarding the scope of this discussion, whether or not we are also included in 2:36-38 is not relevant. However, it is relevant to the ‘Adam’s destined abode’ topic - out of scope of this one, and as I pointed out earlier, ‘ba’dhukum liba’dhi ‘aduwwun’ - as enemies to one another (2:36) can essentially be understood as referring to the two spouses - Adam & his partner (...fa azallahuma...fa akhrajahuma - 2:36), as representative of the Humankind. Similarly, you may want to understand ‘ihbithu minha jami’a’ as referring to the ‘representative’ couple (2:36) or rather with Iblees (7:13) - not necessarily with ‘all’ of Humankind - ‘us’ actually being the audience.

In the main dear Br. niaz, we just have to part with our sincere understandings as primarily evidenced from the Qur’an and try stay as consistent possible holistically with a rational approach. We may consider and reconsider the views of others as we try to filter and discern with the criterial Qur’an and as well agree to disagree at some point if it warrants.


Regards,
Athman.


REFERENCE:

[1]. ADAM (pbuh) AND JANNAH - AN EARTHLY ABODE OR PARADISE?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/adam%20and%20jannah%20FM3.htm

96

Islamic Duties / Re: Pertaining to Marriage

« on: March 26, 2018, 07:03:51 PM »

Salaam,

Thanks for your comments Br. Duster. I concur with Br. Joseph’s response in the above referenced thread and the articles referenced therein. However, I find the discourse to be rounded on a context of ‘Divorce.’ Verses 2:236 and 33:49 seem to address the terms associated with a ‘divorce,’ which to me, sounds a ‘consensual’ legal conclusion reached at given some prior unsettled mutual spousal issues followed by some series of attempts to reconciliation – as stipulated by Shari’ah, as opposed to a ‘natural death’ which is inevitable.

I am somehow inclined to treating it differently.

Is it to be treated equally as that of a ‘divorce’ case, or, is it to be assumed a full marital bond - fully consummated – though not the case, given that death is inevitable and that there was no plan of 'divorce' whatsoever prior to the husband’s death, or, are there any other possible alternative approaches to such a case?

Regards,
Athman.
 

97

General Discussions / Re: Program of Creation of Man on Earth, in light of Quran.

« on: March 26, 2018, 05:34:30 PM »

Dear Br. niaz,

Wa alaikumus salaam,

Thanks for your detailed and informative reply.

Kindly see my responses in blue italics to your comments.

Regarding your query, "I don’t actually understand what you specifically mean by the phrase ‘of the very beginning.’ ", ... what I meant is that in the very beginning there was nothing. Then suddenly there was something (or more accurately, 'everything'). There was space-time and matter. And then there were laws governing how they interacted (fundamental forces, and whatever else). I understand the creation verses as referring to bringing this 'everything' that we see around us into existence.

What I have been contending with your idea of ‘everything suddenly appearing’ is that this doesn’t have to necessarily be understood as ‘suddenly’ in the sense of the word. With such descriptive elaborations in chapters 41 and 79, and use of ‘time-connotative’ ayyam (singular-yaum), one is inclined to interpret the creation as spread over ‘periods’ of time, at least from human perspective.

Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but let me try one more time, to phrase my thoughts in a different way.

I must confess that I previously understood أَيَّامٍ in the context of the creation verses as periods or aeons, for almost 30 years, ever since I read Bucaille as a 12 year old. Verses like 41:11 [Bucaille's translation below] did not completely make sense when understood with the meaning is restricted to the planet earth. But I still managed to put away and ignore these minor nagging questions (see below), and move on.

"Moreover (tumma) He turned to heaven when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth: come willingly or unwillingly! They said: we come in willing obedience.


Why would it refer to the actual formation of the tiny insignificant speck (planet earth) along with formation of the rest of the universe? Especially when the speck is no different. The same 100+ elements found on earth are the same elements found everywhere else. And the sun is a rather young star, its planets, including the earth are recent formations. Long before our sun and the earth formed, billions of other stars with billions of planets were already in existence. Is this verse really describing the formation of the earth (insignificant speck) and the sky (everything else in the universe besides this speck) in the same breath?

It's Okay, no need to be sorry brother. You are actually clear. Sure. The ‘Earth’ is insignificant when considering the grand whole Universe. As I intimated earlier, the ‘Earth’ could be regarded archetypical of other ‘lands’ (65:12) and so ‘ardh’ doesn’t necessarily and restrictively refer to Planet Earth. However, the opposite also stands as far as the relevant Qur’anic references are concerned. Furthermore, what the 7th Century Arabian audience would readily relate to as far as the term ‘ardh’ is concerned would be what had been classically extant. This would arguably also acknowledge their limited scope and ambit on what incorporates the Cosmos, at that time.

Until I came across an alternate reading of 41:11 recently, based on the meaning of أَرْضُ as land ... any land made of these 100+ elements; and سَّمَاءِ as space/vacuum around it [as in the translation from godalone.org, below]. And 41:11 made full sense to me instantly. As did other verses on creation.

Then He balanced the vacuum, and it was a smoke, He then said to it and to matter; "Come into existence willingly or unwillingly." They said; we come willingly.


And this is far more profound and mystifying than one particular trivial instance of a planet condensing around a star.

I would like to also state that I do not consider this as a "proposition" or a "redefinition" of the Arabic words سَمَوَاتٍ and  أَرْضُ, or a radical theory or idea. I see it as the simple process of refining my understanding of a verse and related verses [specifically the verses addressing creation of the cosmos], as I continue reading the Quran.

As much as the above is respectfully appreciated, one has to be cautious accepting a ‘sense-making’
refined understanding that might otherwise be tantamount to a somehow whole redefinition of the term especially as classically understood or even with modern-day extant nuance. Unless a citation of some unequivocal Qur’anic support is made, or else from well-known classical Arabic lexicons or references, a ‘one’ organization website interpretation would be untenable from my humble opinion, despite it somehow making sense especially as regards some theological scruples over some understanding.

The occurrence of these words in other verses do not have to be understood the exact same way. There are nuances in meaning of words, in certain contexts they can take different meanings than in other contexts. I am not saying that أَرْضُ does not mean or can never be understood as earth. That would be a very dumb thing to say. I am referring specifically to the creation verses only. When God is describing the creation of the cosmos to us, through human language of Arabic, the language that was spoken by Muhammad and his community, we should not restrict the meanings to those based on geocentric or anthropomorphic perspectives. Of course, in other verses, that relate to our experiences as humans [e.g., your reference to Makkah, Rome, Midian], it is perfectly acceptable to do that.

I concur. As an addition, I would still assert that the 7th Century Arabian context has to be appreciated, especially the ambit of their know-how pertaining Cosmos during the Quran’s revelation, when understanding such terms.

On 2:30, you can also understand it as planet earth. I only said I see no need to restrict the meaning to earth. But you can also read it as earth if you want. I read Joseph's article on Jannah ... thats a separate topic, that has no direct bearing on this discussion. I can comment on it another time.

With Br. Joseph’s article, of which I don’t have any qualms with as far as the subject matter is concerned, replete with relevant Qur’anic verses and well presented, you would agree with me that your statement ‘in paradise (some place outside our current universe),’ would best be argued against using such an exposition as that in the article.

And yes, if you say ayyam connotates a 'slice of time', thats perfectly fine (without grappling wth the idea that time itself was also created).

Finally, I would like to state that I think it does not matter much what one's final conclusion is on this question ... whether it is six 24-hour days, six periods or aeons stretching out until this planet earth formed ~4.5 bya, or six 'days'/stages until matter and space-time were created. Finally what is most important is the spiritual message of the Quran - to worship God alone. Thanks for considering my understanding as worthy of this discussion ... hopefully it has been fruitful.  And hope we do not miss the forest for the trees as we stay zoomed into this particular topic.

Of course brother it has been much fruitful especially with your insights. As far as this discussion is concerned, I don’t agree with your summarized conclusion per se. I do fully appreciate that the ultimate goal is to grasp the spiritual message of the Qur’an. However, I find it necessary that as a believer, one has an obligation to do the best they can in striving towards truth upholding the same, honestly within their ambit of knowledge. It matters having a fully convinced conclusion presented as a rational argument against some topic in an academic discussion towards pursuit of knowledge, especially as one supported by the Qur’an.


Athman, and completely switching topics, since you asked me to check out the article on whether جَنَّةَ was on earth (this is orthogonal to the discussion on the limits on the meaning of أرْضِ).

The basic premise of the article is that ".... there is no direct evidence in the Quran for such an assertion", meaning that the Quran is silent on this question, and hence either viewpoint is equally valid. And on the basis of this premise, it evaluates reasons that can favor the idea that جَنَّةَ could have been on earth.

You may also want to reconsider the ‘Final Thoughts’ of the article [1] by Br. Joseph as referenced below: “Given the discussions above it appears that both Adam (pbuh) and his spouse were created for the purposes to reside on Earth as vicegerents. What changed was the state of felicity that they initially acquired and after sinning, were subsequently banished from it till a term appointed.”
 


But based on a simple, in context, sequential reading of the verses 2:35-36, I have to conclude that جَنَّةَ (paradise) is not in الأرْضِ (the land/earth). Since in 2:35 Adam, with his wife, are invited to live in paradise. Then after the original sin, Adam, his wife, and all of us, are evicted from paradise and then sent to earth (2:36). Which means that we were not in the earth to begin with. I consider this direct evidence.

And We said to Adam, dwell in paradise -  جَنَّةَ - , you and your wife and eat from it whatever you desire, however, do not approach this tree, lest both of you become transgressors.   

I recommend the section ‘ADAM (pbuh) WAS MADE FOR THE EARTH’ in the article [1].

However, Satan duped the two of them and caused their eviction from where they were, and We said; go down as enemies of one another, and the land/earth - الأرْضِ - shall be your abode and sustenance for awhile.
Subsequently, Adam received from his Lord words by which He accepted his repentance. Indeed, He is The Accepter of Repentance, The All Merciful.
We said, go down from here all of you.  Then when you receive guidance from Me, whoever follows My guidance has nothing to fear nor will he grieve.
[2:35-38]


A second problem is that we were also in جَنَّةَ (this is alluded to in 2:36, and reconfirmed in 2:38; also see 33:72, 7:172). If  جَنَّةَ were on earth, it would mean that we reincarnated on the earth.

I hope that the section 'GO DOWN' in the article [1] addresses your contention. Specifically, I trust that understanding Adam and His spouse as representative (quintessential) of all of Humankind would make it easy appreciating the use of the phrase ‘ba’dhukum liba’dhi ‘aduwwun’ – as enemies to one another (2:36).

A third problem is that the earth is only a temporary abode "for awhile" (إِلَى حِي). Our primary existence was in جَنَّةَ, this world is just a sojourn to make amends for the incident described in 2:36. The جَنَّةَ we return to is other wordly. The جَنَّةَ near which Muhammad was transported to was other worldly (53:15). The جَنَّةَ we came from should also be expected to be other worldly.

I think that as much as your argument for the ‘Adam’s destined abode’ in the Universe is concerned, you make some assumptions and quote some Qur’anic verses that open up to other topics (e.g, Muhammad was transported to was other worldly (53:15), also see 33:72, 7:172 ) of which would be out of scope of this discussion. On the other hand, referring you to some articles for reference of the same is interpreted as being orthogonal to this discussion. In my humble view, as far as this discussion is concerned, I would advise that you try to reconsider your Qur’anic verses quoted in support of the contention you try to make lest it seemingly turns to being unrelated to the subject matter of the foregoing discussion.



Regards,
Athman.


References:

[1]. ADAM (pbuh) AND JANNAH - AN EARTHLY ABODE OR PARADISE?

http://quransmessage.com/articles/adam%20and%20jannah%20FM3.htm

98

General Discussions / Re: Program of Creation of Man on Earth, in light of Quran.

« on: March 23, 2018, 05:07:27 PM »

Dear niaz,

Wa alaikumus salaam,

You shared:

“Thanks for sharing.

Regarding 2:29-30, I do not see it as restricted to the planet earth. 2:30 is fulfilled in 2:31-39 that follow.

2:31-35 happen in paradise (some place outside our current universe), where we all were once there (2:38, 7:172, 33:72).

2:36-38 talk about the eviction of our parents and ourselves to "the land" (in this current universe). It tells us how we came here for a temporary stay (from paradise), and what our purpose in life should be in order to be successful here ("when you receive guidance from Me, whoever follows My guidance ...." in 2:38).

It covers land in this universe, on the planet earth, and wherever humans may colonize by God's will in the future. Very soon, humans could be colonizing Mars and other places in our universe. The planet earth itself is neither special nor remarkable in the grand scheme of our universe.”

I am sure the following article by Br. Joseph addresses some of your contentions above. On a side-note, identifying ‘the earth’ as ‘our planet earth’ in some of the instances it appears as mentioned in the Qur’an does not deem it so special or remarkable as you put it rather at least the relevant ‘world’ in which we live and whose inhabitants are directly addressed by the Qur’an. Other ‘lands,’ possibly Mars inclusive, are not whose ‘possible’ inhabitants find direct and primary address from the Quran’s way of address especially with such notable and well-known places on ‘our earth’ like Makkah, Rome, Midian, etc., mentioned therein.

http://quransmessage.com/articles/adam%20and%20jannah%20FM3.htm


You then commented:

Also, the classical view was shaped by a geocentric perspective of our universe. Now as we know more a lot more than what was known back then, we update our understanding accordingly.

In as much as your proposition that ‘the classical view was shaped by a geocentric perspective of our universe’ assumably holds, it can as well be arguably asserted that the Qur’an primarily addresses the contemporaneous classical audience, in a manner familiar to what would readily be appreciated in that context.

You again shared:

I am not saying it is necessarily "instantaneous". I am only saying the description is of the very beginning of creation, not the of the 9 or 10 billion years it took for this planet earth to form and become habitable. I do not know the timescale involved, or understand whether a time scale has any significance, since time itself was created when space and matter were created.

Respectfully, I don’t actually understand what you specifically mean by the phrase ‘of the very beginning.’ I readily accept that space, time and matter were created. However, I acknowledge that words have meanings and their use is more significantly relevant to whom they are primarily addressed. I believe that ‘yaum’ (plural - ayyam) would not be an exception, with at least a time connotation, specifically ‘an expressed slice of time that gives some human relevance.’

Therefore, ‘6 ayyam’ would refer to ‘time periods,’ the actual timescale for such a ‘yaum’ not relevant to us, at least as deemed by the Qur’an in such a context. However, at least some relativeness of such-like ‘ayyam’ is alluded to in other verses from different contexts (23:112-113,32:5,10:45,2:196,2:203) and thus to have some human relevance, and as to why they are even deemed worth of mention for the Quran’s audience, interpreting them to be ‘aeons’ would not conflict the overarching Qur’anic aspect of time. You may also at least agree with me that a decree for ‘materialization’ of something by Allah could either be ‘momentary’ or ‘over time,’ at least from our perspective (time-bound).

On the other hand, I don’t subscribe to any advocacy of such theories describing the creation like that ‘of the 9 or 10 billion years,’ unless it is a theory that would find some unequivocal support from the Qur’an, at most something clear (18:22). However, accepting or rejecting them as truth or proof is another matter, and would arguably be debateable from my humble point of view.

Regards,
Athman.

99

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: An Inquiry on People of the Book and their 'Book'

« on: March 21, 2018, 02:25:12 PM »

Salaam Br. Joseph,

Thanks for your additional comments. Sincerely noted and appreciated. Thanks also for your dedicated time and energy on this matter.

Regards,
Athman.

100

Islamic Duties / Pertaining to Marriage

« on: March 19, 2018, 06:01:47 PM »

Dear all,

The following is a 3-part inquiry which arises from the foregoing situation parted, of which I was asked to share my opinion. I would like to have your humble views on the same.

A man got married on Friday though had intended to get his wife to his house on Sunday. Out of fate, the man died on Saturday having not fully paid the dowry nor having yet consummated his marriage.

•   Is the wife (of the deceased) eligible for the remaining part of her dowry (Should it be paid to her)? Or, should she return whatever she possesses of the dowry?
•   Should the wife stay an Iddat? Which typical Iddat is that?
•   Is she entitled to inheritance from the deceased’s estate?

Thanks.

Regards,
Athman.

101

General Discussions / Re: Program of Creation of Man on Earth, in light of Quran.

« on: March 14, 2018, 08:00:59 PM »

Dear niaz,

Salaamun Alaikum,

Albeit I agree with you that ‘the earth’ in the oft-quoted reference of ‘the heavens and the earth’ (7:54) or rather ‘the earth and the heavens’ (20:4) in the Qur'an can be understood to be quintessential of other earth-like habitable stellar planets (65:12) with a side-note of an alternative meaning of ‘land,’ I see it as an unwarranted assertion to assume an always such general inference for each and every occurrence of the phrase 'the heavens and the earth' in the Qur'an. In fact, the other possibility could arguably be averred for, that is, the traditional understanding of 'the earth' being 'our planet earth' (2:29-30) especially with such a context of 'the earth' in 2:29 being an abode for Adam (2:30-31) as our progenitor. As a primary reference, 'the earth' (41:9) was created within 2 ayyams as well as 'the heavens' (41:12) with its/their 'laws' within the same 2 ayyams. In my humble opinion, the 2 ayyams would still possibly be the time bracket for the creation of the other earth-like habitable planets in 65:12, as well as would the 4 ayyams in 41:10 for the 'ordainment' of 'rawasiya' and 'aqwat' on 'the earth' also apply for some essential 'ordainment' on the other earth-like habitable planets.

In my humble opinion, as much as the term 'ardh' is implicitly being assumed to have a general meaning of 'any place capable of originating or sustaining life: basically any stellar system made of matter,' and 'the primordial gas clouds, or matter that God created, from which stellar systems evolved,' credence has to be given to the contextual reference of the term in the Qur'an along with its classical or well-known meaning given such context. The same applies to what 'samaa/samawat' would be taken to refer to. As long as this is concerned, I don't concur with your conclusive redefinition of 'samaa/samawat' or 'ardh' to 'vacuum/vacua(space)' and 'matter' respectively.

On the other hand, arguing from such a premise of the above redefinition of the terms 'samaa' and 'ardh', you make an extension of the idea to advocate for an 'instant' interpretation of the 6-ayyams hence not the actual evolutionary process of 'the heavens and the earth,' rather some infinitesimally instantaneous provenance of matter and space. In my opinion, this approach ignores the elaborations given in 41:9-12, especially with respect to how the 'ayyams' are distributed, supported by those of 79:27-33. Such descriptions are essentially alluding to some significance of the mention of 6 ayyams in the first place, aptly making up to the count (6 ayyams) as a general reference from the other 7 places mentioned in the Qur'an. The significance of its value (6) is only known to Allah as you intimated.

That the subsequent evolutionary process of 'the heavens and the earth' after the momentary 'decree' would conflict the fact that 'universal/scientific laws' found provenance at the 'instant' of the decree is not a plausible counter-argument in my opinion. The ‘inspiration’ of the ‘amr’ for each ‘samaa’(41:12) needs not necessarily be ‘after’ their complete creation.

With regards interpretation of the verses as referring to the subsequent evolutionary process of ‘the heavens and the earth’ after its ‘decree,’ I see this as a cogent proposition as compared to that of an instantaneous occurrence of 6 ayyams especially with such a summarized elucidatory description of how the 6 ayyams were distributed over the evolutionary events (41:9-12). As to whether this is taken to refer some process of ‘some more recent past,’ this doesn’t deny the fact that 6 ayyams were over which ‘the heavens and the earth’ and what exists in between ordained. Relative to any point in time and whatever the referential time system/frame, the ‘heavens and the earth’ took 6 ayyams to ‘materialize.’ The equivalent standard of a single ‘yaum’ would in effect depend on the point of reference in time. The exact distinct equivalent of a ‘yaum’ as given in the verses is only known to Allah. This can as well be supported by such relativeness of ‘yaum’ as in 70:4, 32:5, or 22:47.   

 
Regards,

Athman.

102

General Discussions / Re: Program of Creation of Man on Earth, in light of Quran.

« on: March 14, 2018, 07:20:06 PM »

Dear Islamic Mike,

Salaam,

Welcome to the forum.

Kindly see my responses in italics to your comments in bold.

I came across a verse in the Quran that appears to allude to a 24-hour day given the context of the verse. I'm not an Arabic expert so, I'm posting my observation for others to validate. The verse in question 9:36. I've looked at the Arabic and every possible translation I could find (http://www.islamawakened.org/quran/9/36/default.htm), and they, essentially, all are saying the same thing. Here is an excerpt of the segment in question:

[9:36] Verily, the number of months with Allah is twelve months (shahran)  according to the law of Allah since the day (yawma) He created the heavens and the earth. Of these four (months) are sacred...

I study the Qu'ran from the assumption there are zero contradictions whereby any contradiction that is found is not the Qu'ran that is incorrect, but our interpretation. Having said that, 9:36 is directly referring to a 12-month 'human' year (so to speak) and this has been the law 'from the day' (yawma) HE created the heavens (l-samāwāti) and the earth.

Of course the Qur’an should be studied with such a proviso such that disparities in understanding/interpretations would well be appreciated as resultant from individuals’ fallible approaches. In my opinion, the above translation of the Arabic verse 9:36 captures the key overall interpretation. However, such an understanding of an allusion of a 24-hour day in 9:36 is untenable within the context. That a ‘12-month lunar year’ referred to in the verse as we recognize today (12-month 'human' year) gives way to acknowledge a ‘24-hour day’ interpretation of the ‘ayyam’ in the verse is not an explicit understanding to advance. For example, today, we know that 4-months are ‘sacred’ and that they are the ones in which pilgrimage is prescribed, as since the advent of prophet Ibrahim (22:26-32). However, for instance, as you may agree, claiming that pilgrimage started since ‘the day Allah created the heavens and the earth’ just because the ‘four sacred months’ appear in that verse would lead us to a faulty conclusion.

I see three possible ways to interpret this:

1) it refers to the last day (day six) when everything was completed (earth, life, 7 heavens) allowing the 'period' interpretation, or

2) the first day when the heaven (l-samāi) and the earth were literally brought into existence (joined entity separated as per 21:30) prior to the fine-tuning, perfecting over the remaining 5 'days', or

3) the 'day' GOD actually said to the heavens (l-samāwāti) and the earth 'to come into existence willingly or unwilling' which upon careful study would be the second day of creation.

In my humble opinion, if 70:4,32:5,22:47 are taken into consideration, one can appreciate why ‘ayyam’ is used in 9:36 in its essence as a slice of time expressed to give some human relevance, as Br. Joseph states in a thread [1] referenced below.


If 9:36 is referring to the last 'day' (sixth day) this would allow for the six 'periods' of 'GOD-days' interpretation. This would confirm the usage of the plural 'heavens' (l-samāwāti) in 9:36. Although, the usage of '(from the) day' (yawmi) seems to create some issues for a couple of reasons:

A) As far as I am aware (please correct me if I'm wrong), 'yawma' (day) has never been used in the Quran to signify anything other than a 24-hour human day, unlike 'ayyāmin' which could mean 'days' or 'periods.' Yet, it is used here. 

I think as far as being aware of a thing is concerned, a sincere confirmation of the same has to be assured before assuming a conviction from it. From several examples that could be quoted, I believe a clear contrast can be made between verses (62:9,5:3) and (70:4,32:5,22:47) or at least (11:103,1:4) where while the former allude to ‘our today’s 24-hour day,’ the latter refer to ‘epochs’ or long ‘periods’ of time. I trust that you don’t take the ‘Day of Judgement’ to be a regular ‘24-hour’ day at least from all that which is expected to take place within its entirety (Judgement of ‘all’ creation).

B) Irrespective of our interpretation of 'day', The Qu'ran indicates a six-day creation duration, not a one-day duration, which would seem to allude to the specific 'day' when both the 'heavens' (l-samāwāti) and the earth came into existence. That would be 'day two' when GOD said to the heavens and the earth come into existence willingly or unwillingly (see 41:11).

I think the difficulty in appreciating the holistic reference to the ‘yaum’ in 9:36 when Allah created the heavens and the earth lies at the fact that a conditional restriction has been made that the ‘yaum’ should be at least a ‘day’ amongst the 6 ‘ayyams’ of creation. In my opinion, this is unwarranted.

[41:11] Then He turned to the smoke, when it was still gas, and said to it, and to the earth, "Come into existence, willingly or unwillingly." They said, "We come willingly."

[41:12] In two days He determined them seven heavens, and He revealed to each heaven its commands. We decorated the lowest heaven with lamps and preserve them. Such is the decree of the Almighty, the Knower.

Based on the above, the first interpretation does not appear to align with 9:36 in light of other verses. The second interpretation cannot be correct because in the first 'day' there was only ONE heaven and the earth. The verse (9:36) clearly mentions 'heavens' (l-samāwāti), therefore it cannot be referring to the first day of creation. This leaves us with the aforementioned third interpretation focusing on the actual 'day' the heavenS (l-samāwāti) and the earth were created, which would be day 2. At this point, it is appropriate to post 41:9-12.
 
[41:9] Say, "You disbelieve in the One who created the earth in two days, and you set up idols to rank with Him, though He is Lord of the worlds."
[41:10] He placed therein firmly-set mountains, made it productive, and He calculated its provisions in four equal alike for those who ask.
[41:11] Then He turned to the heaven while it was still smoke, and He said to it, and to the earth, "Come into existence, willingly or unwillingly." They said, "We come willingly."
[41:12] Thus, He completed seven universes in two days, and set up the laws for every heaven. And we adorned the lowest heaven with lamps and (to) guard. That is the decree of the Almighty, All-Knower.

With such a premise to expect the ‘yaum’ in 9:36 as a ‘day’ from the 6 ‘distinct’ ayyams, you unnecessarily single out the ‘second’ distinct day to be the ‘yaum’ (9:36) owing to the completion of ‘the heavens’ by an assumed ‘day two’ (41:12). This is again unwarranted in my opinion. I fail to see why you conclude that only ‘one heaven’ was existing by the end of the ‘first’ ayyam, by simply inferring from 41:11-12, which is not explicitly clear to ‘affirm.’

From what I can see, the 'heavenS' and the earth were created in a single day, namely Day two. This would leave us with the remaining four days/periods to fill the earth with life after the heavens and the earth was made. This brings us back to my initial question of whether the six days of creation were 24-hour days or GOD-days (periods). Since 9:36 indicates the count of months is 12 since the day the heavens and the earth were created, that would mean after the second day of creation we were on a 24-hour clock in order to calculate 12 months.

From your conclusion of ‘day two’ being the time when ‘heavens and earth’ had been completely created, you say that a 24-hour day was initiated and hence ‘we’ were able to do the count as from then. This ‘theory’ assumes that ‘man’ was fully existing when this was ordained or at least sometimes before it. This is not something that can explicitly be confirmed from the Qur’an.

[9:36] Verily, the number of months with Allah is twelve months (shahran)  according to the law of Allah since the day (yawma) He created the heavens and the earth. Of these four (months) are sacred...

This would make sense as the sun (lamp) and the moon would have been created by the second day of Creation allowing us to calculate time.

In my humble opinion, as much as this somehow scientifically makes sense, it is however not a conclusion that can be explicitly confirmed as mentioned in the Qur’an.

[10:5] He (is) the One Who made the sun a shining light, and the moon a reflected light and determined for it phases, THAT YOU MANY KNOW (the) number (of) the YEARS and the count (of time). Not created Allah that except in truth. He explains the Signs for a people (who) know.

Based on the above, I have come to the conclusion the six days of Creation were, in fact, 24-hour days, not 'epochs/periods'. Otherwise, contradictions would arise in the Quran. Furthermore, this confirms the previous scripture's account (Genesis 1). If I have missed something in 9:36 please kindly point it out.

In my humble view, I still see no warrant for such a conclusion based on the premise that the ‘yaum’ in 9:36 has to be a ‘yaum’ from among the ‘6 ayyams’ in 4:9-12 and that sequential ‘day two’ is the ‘yaum’ in which the heavens and the earth had fully been created hence a 24-hour day provenance for ‘existing’ human beings to make reference to. To the contrary, I believe a ‘holistic’ reference is made to ‘when’ the heavens and the earth were created in 9:36 hence the number of months are 12 in a year, ‘from time immemorial,’ / ‘from the beginning of time.’

Hopefully that helps in some small way.


Regards,

Athman.



References:

[1]. Is Allah’s Day Equivalent to 1,000 yrs or 50,000 yrs?
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=405.0

103

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: An Inquiry on People of the Book and their 'Book'

« on: March 08, 2018, 08:17:49 PM »

Salaam,

Dear Br. Joseph,

Thanks for your response and the references. They actually do help. I also appreciate your dedicated precious time to address my inquiry. However, I still do have some unsettled concerns. I hope you will still spare some time to address.

With such a proviso as you share above (from an unbiased standpoint and as confirmed sooth) and with the Qur’an as the ‘final criterion,’ the ‘Scriptures’ would still be expected to be ‘guidance’ for the ‘People of the Book’ despite the errant theologies, the obfuscated pieces and those non-scriptural annexes advanced in the name of Scripture. I also agree that by Allah’s pledge to ‘protect’ the Qur’an/’Dhikr’ in the Qur’an, errant theologies by ‘individuals’ and various factions developing as a result are not something guaranteed not to happen for those Qur’an ‘believers.’ Thus, yes, no specific religious group can somehow be termed disadvantaged.

However, the gist of my inquiry lies at the fact that while the Qur’an’s majority extant copies are arguably of the protected original manuscript, the previous ‘scriptures’ haven’t survived the same, albeit not wholly corrupted. ‘In this,’ the Qur’an and the ‘scriptures’ can’t compare. With that, can one posit that the ‘promise’ for the Quran’s divine protection (15:9) was in one way actioned via the transmission method (memorization alongside writing) while some other less effective method was used for the previous ‘scriptures,’ by its contemporaries, in the main, being Allah’s plan, probably as a test, that they (previous scriptures) get slightly 'interfered' with? Otherwise, could there be some reason as to why the Qur’an survived ‘originality’ of ‘matn’ (script) and 'remembrance,' with such a promise (15:9)?
 
I also agree that in that respect, “ 'our time' is not so much different to the time when the Arabian prophet was preaching the Quran to his people.”

By referring to ‘our time,’ I am concerned about the fact that ‘Christianity’ and ‘Judaism’ faiths are now spread worldwide. I wasn’t sure if it is the ‘Israelites’ that are expected to be judging by the ‘scriptures’ (Book & Injeel) or it is any claimed Jew/Christian. This is with a view that though the Qur’an(Mohammad) was first meant to be a warning to the ‘Mother of the cities’ and those surrounding it(42:7, 6:92), as the primary audience, it is to be the guidance for all/'whole world'(4:174) being the ‘final’ protected scripture while on the other hand, the ‘scriptures’ (Moses, Jesus) were meant for the 'Israelites' (43:59,3:49,3:93,5:110)-unless am missing some point.

Otherwise, if it is any ‘self-proclaimed’ adherent of the two faiths that is expected to judge by ‘their scriptures,’ should it imply that ‘anyone’ can choose to be Christian/Jew or Muslim and thus judge with the ‘scriptures’ or Qur’an, respectively, with Qur’an as the final criterion? And thus, can the ‘previous scriptures’ also be regarded as meant for all/whole world with a proviso that they be read with no bias and in truth, and with the Qur’an as the final criterion?


Regards,

Athman.

104

Discussions / Re: Search Engine

« on: March 06, 2018, 04:13:24 PM »

Dear QM Moderators Team,

Thanks for the fruitful efforts, it does work now.


Regards,
Athman.

105

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / An Inquiry on People of the Book and their 'Book'

« on: March 05, 2018, 05:39:13 PM »

Salamun Aleikum,

Dear Br. Joseph,

I have an inquiry which comes in two-fold in what is actually of concern.

1) In your opinion, how do you reconcile the fact that the Qur’an/ ‘Dhikr’ has been promised to be preserved (15:9) while the former ‘scriptures’ were somehow ‘allowed’ to be partly interfered with, 5:15 (though not wholly corrupted) albeit being expected to be the ‘judging scriptures’ among the ‘People of the Book’ for all life? I do understand that the Qur’an has to be the Criterion for discernment as ‘muhayminan alaihi.’ (5:48)

2) In your opinion, whom do you consider or believe the Qur'an to be expecting be judging by their Book (Taurat/Injeel) in 'our' time? Is it any one claiming to be Jew/Christian, 'only' the actual Jews/christians among citizens of 'Israel' or there's an overlap?


Regards,

Athman.