Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - niaz

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
46
Salaamun 'alaikum Athman,

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.

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?

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. 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.

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.

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.

Peace.

47
General Discussions / Re: Marula
« on: March 23, 2018, 07:27:57 AM »
But I do agree with you that the similarity emphasized in 3:59 is that of their shared humanity. That both Jesus and Adam were created from earthly materials, or organic matter, or coded by DNA molecules etc. Being of a virgin birth does not make Jesus the "son of God".
 
3:59 is the only verse in the Quran, where Jesus and Adam are mentioned together in the same verse. There is a remarkable mathematical symmetry in how the names of Jesus and Adam occur in the Quran, in the process linking 3:59 to Sura 19, and specifically to 19:92. These are some verifiable facts:

[Source: http://journal_of_submission.homestead.com/files/ultimath.pdf]

http://corpus.quran.com/search.jsp?q=lem%3AEiysaY+pos%3Apn
http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=A%5Edam#(3:59:7)
http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=rHm

Surely, the example of Jesus as far as God is concerned is just like the example of Adam.  He created him from clay and said to it, be and it then became. [3:59]

1.a. Count of Jesus in the Quran = 25.
1.b. Count of Adam in the Quran = 25.

2. The only time Jesus and Adam are mentioned together in the same verse is in 3:59. From the end of the Quran,
2.a. 3:59 has the 19th occurrence of Jesus.
2.b. 3:59 has the 19th occurrence of Adam.

3. After 3:59, they start to diverge, and are mentioned different suras (4,5,6 vs. 5,7,17,18). Then they merge and are mentioned together in Sura 19, each mentioned exactly once. Yet, despite the divergence before that, the counts not only merge again in sura 19, but interestingly they are exactly 19! From the beginning of the Quran,
3.a. Sura 19 (v. 34) has the 19th occurrence of Jesus.
3.b. Sura 19 (v. 58) has the 19th occurrence of Adam.

4. The name of God - Rahman (The All Gracious), occurs in the Quran 57 (19x3) times. As we approach the end of Sura 19, we see a phenomenon that the frequency of the word Rahman spikes (being mentioned 16 times just in this Sura). From the beginning of the Quran,
4.a. Sura 19 (v. 92) also has the 19th occurrence of Rahman!

5. And note that 34 + 58 = 92!

So the example of Jesus is like the example of Adam mathematically too, and it led us to 19:92 ...

It is not befitting for The All Gracious to beget a son! [19:92]

3:59 refutes the claim that the virgin birth gives Jesus the status of "son of God". 19:92 explains how wrong it is to attribute a son to God. Suras 3 and 19 are also connected by similar themes ... they both contain the accounts of Zacharaiah, John, Mary and Jesus.

48
Athman, salaamun 'alaikum

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.

Regarding 41:9-12, yes the verses describe a breakdown of 'days' for creating matter (two), and making matter sustainable for life (four) ... i.e., decreed the laws that are fine tuned for life; and the creation of all the seven vacua/spaces/universes (two).

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.

Peace.

49
General Discussions / Re: Marula
« on: March 22, 2018, 11:20:06 AM »
salaam Hope,

She said; how can I indeed have a son when no man has ever touched me and I have never been unchaste. He said; thus says your Lord, it is easy for Me and We will make him a sign for the people and a mercy from Us. And this matter is preordained. She thus carried him ..... [19:20-22].


My understanding .... Mary conceived Jesus, without any man touching her (i.e., by parthenogenesis). How could Mary have a son when no man touched her and she had never been unchaste? Because it is easy for God.


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


My understanding ... paradise ( الْجَنَّةَ) where we lived before, was not in the land where we live now (الأرْضِ). Because God sent Adam and his wife, and the rest of us from  الْجَنَّةَ to الأرْضِ after the event discussed in 2:35, so الْجَنَّةَ could not already have been in الأرْضِ. I believe it is outside our current universe, like the paradise in the hereafter, and the paradise of abode near where Muhammad was transported to during his night journey (53:15).

Another reason is that all of us were in الْجَنَّةَ too. Surely, we (the present generation) were not in a garden in Africa.  So do we know where it was or what particular tree it was? From 3:7, I am wary of seeking an interpretation (تَأْوِيلِ) that is not already evident. The message that can be drawn from the event of the tree is that we should not disobey God, and we should follow His Guidance and commandments. And also, if we repent and turn to God, our repentance will be accepted, like Adam was forgiven.

50
Athman, Salaamun 'alaikum

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.

51
General Discussions / Re: About Forgiveness
« on: March 11, 2018, 01:56:57 PM »
Wa alaikum salaam Ahmad,

This is a very good question ... I am just thinking out aloud. It is our duty to fight against injustice, persecution and aggression (2:191-194, 22:39-40). But the moment the aggression or persecution ceases, we should cease all hostilities (8:61, 2:190,192.193). If forgiving the oppressor in a "position of weakness" encourages or exacerbates the oppression or injustice, and will not help bring it to a stop, then our first priority should be to stop the oppression. Once the oppression has ceased, and we are considering how to punish the oppressor for his misdeeds, thats when forgiveness would be better.

Does this make sense?

52
Peace Mike,

I am in complete agreement with your last paragraph, about the perils of constantly trying to reinterpret the Quran based on half baked scientific theories. And on looking "at the verses exactly as they are written without imposing our predispositions of how things aught to be".

My approach is to keep it very simple. We can use established scientific knowledge to inform our understanding of the Quran,  but we should not try to deliberately "fit" interpretations around evolving scientific theories. When the Quran does indeed confirm scientific understanding, it will be very evident. For whatever is not, we don't need to try to force one.

I don't see the need for an interpretation as "6 periods". For reasons I described in my previous post, I understand the Quran as describing the creation of space and matter itself in the “six days”, not specifically to the evolution of our planet earth. And I am not trying to relate this to any cosmology, since no cosmology captures how the cosmos was created. Scientific laws as we know them break down at the instant of creation. That is because God only prescribed the laws for our universe at this point.

Since there is no scientific theory that currently addresses this (and possibly never, since it lies beyond the scope of empiricism), I don't see a need to fit any specific scientific theory.

I also disagree that 'day' in the context of creation means 24 hours. Since meaning of "24 hours" is meaningless before the solar system evolved (only ~4.5 bya, which was about 9 billion years after creation). And "days" were not always 24 hours. The earth used to spin a lot faster before, and has been steadily slowing down. In the early earth, a day lasted only about 6 hours.

To understand where you are coming from - do you dispute these timelines or durations? Is it part of the cosmology theory you expressed skepticism about?

53
Peace!

Something to think about ....

Usually, /as-samaawti wal ard/ is attempted to be interpreted as the planet earth and the rest of the universe. And the verses about creation are attempted to be interpreted as _not_ referring to the instant of the creation of the cosmos itself [and prescription of its laws], but rather to the subsequent evolution of the planet earth as a habitable planet in the more recent past.

I disagree with this approach. The word /ard/ literally means 'land'. This planet earth is too insignificant to be described as a separate creation. There are billions on earth-like planets in the universe capable of sustaining life. The Quran [42:29] says that God has spread out living creatures throughout /as-samaawti wal ard/ (literally 'the skies and the land'). All rocky planets in the universe also have 'land', just as on earth. So 'land' is any place capable of originating or sustaining life: basically any stellar system made of matter, since we are all made out of star dust. Any place that humans can migrate to, live on or survive, or any stellar system where life can exist is /ard/. The primordial gas clouds, or matter that God created, from which stellar systems evolved was also /ard/.

The word /samaa`a/ literally means 'sky' - the space/vacuum around us that we can seen from land/matter. The plural /samawaat/ means 'skies'. Quran says that God created the 7 skies in 'layers' (67:3, 71:5). What we can observe is /samaa ad-duniya/: the 'sky of this world' or 'the lowest sky', adorned with 'lamps' (the stars we see when we gaze the sky) [67:3-5, 41:9-12]. Other skies (universes) are beyond our observable sky (universe).

41:12 tells us that each such sky/space/layer has its own physical laws (/amr/). It may be different from what we experience in our space, God knows best.

Also, the Quran teaches us that first God created the universes, and subsequently (/thumma/) assigned them their laws [balanced (/istawa/) the throne/dominion] (10:3, 2:29, 7:54, 25:59, 32:4, 57:4). The universe is governed by a system of equations or the balance that everything should adhere to, that was prescribed after the vacuum and matter were created.

Given this background, the "six days" refers to the very instant of creation itself. What is its significance? God known best. God says He creates in the 'blink of an eye' [54:49-50], so "six days" can not be understood literally as the day we experience on the planet earth today.

http://journal_of_submission.homestead.com/Quran.htm

Indeed your Lord is God, the One who created the skies and the land in six days then He established balance over the dominion. He decides all matters. ... [10:3]

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. He then completed them as seven vacua in two days, and He inspired in each vacuum its law. And We adorned the lowest vacuum with lamps, and placed therein guards. Such is the design of The Almighty, The All Knowing. [41:11-12]


54
Salaam Ahmad,

I don't want to dwell too much on the topic, and end up issuing fatwas on specific flavors of the profession.  :) Let whoever wants earn their livelihood however they want; it is between them and God. Similarly for those who chose to approach them for guidance. I have already expressed my general sentiment about this strongly enough. And looks like we more or less agree on the foundational principle.

Regarding religion itself, my thought is that it consists of the commandments listed in the Quran, like: do not setup partners for God; observe the contact prayer regularly to commemorate God; spend charitably on the poor, orphans, hungry, needy, refugees;  do not tell lies, do not break your contracts, do not cheat, be patient, devout, appreciative; lower your gaze and maintain your chastity; avoid backbiting, slander, gossip, spying, calling people names; be fair when dealing with people - give full measure, stand up firmly for justice, even if incriminating oneself, don't be biased, prejudiced against people etc. As we keep reading the Quran, we are reminded about them, and we should strive our best to "hear and obey". The more familiar I become with it, the lesser I see the need for any professional instruction to learn or practice them.

God clarifies that interest is not "just like trade". He has forbidden interest and permitted trade. I think we can each use our common sense, and seek God's guidance to "hear and obey" this commandment.

Peace

55
Salaam,

Note that 17:1 does not say Jerusalem. It says "al masjid al aqsa" which literally means "the farthest mosque" or "the farthest place of prostration". There was no Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem at the time of Muhammad. This was built by the Ummayad ruler Abd al-Malik more than 70 years after Muhammad's death. 17:1 was possibly associated with Jerusalem for political reasons, to allow the Ummayad rulers assert their authority over Jerusalem, and build the Masjid here.

I believe the "farthest place of prostration", where 17:1 says Muhammad was shown some of God's signs, is the same as the place where he is mentioned in 53:18 as having been shown great signs  (and described in 53:11-18). There was only one journey, according to the Quran, from Masjid Al Haram, to this far away (aqsa) place in the universe, where he was shown the signs.

Peace

56
Salaam,

This is my understanding ... "eating the dead brother's flesh" is a metaphor to help us understand the gravity of backbiting. When someone is dead, they are not present to defend themselves if their flesh is eaten by someone. Similarly, when backbiting, the person who is the target of the backbiting is not present to defend themselves from whatever they are being accused of. So backbiting is similar to cannibalism in this respect, and we should abhor the former, just as much as we abhor the latter.

Peace.

57
Also, I see the REAL message of the Quran as simple and clear (mubeen). If someone claims that he has to make a living off teaching it, then something is not right.   

58
Salaam Ahmad,

I have to respectfully disagree with your understanding. I don't think 9:122 is referring to any scholars at all. It tells us that all the believers did not mobilize for battle all at once - some of them did while the rest of them stayed back. Those who went forth did not get to engage in study of the Quran under this specific circumstance, while who stayed back did. So those who stayed back taught what they learned to the other contingent when they returned. All those who stayed back did the study, not just designated "scholars" among them. God promises us that the Quran is easy to learn (54:17,22,32,40). The following Sura, God tells us that He teaches the Quran (55:1-2). God expects everybody to reflect and study the Quran for themselves (38:29, 47:24). Under normal circumstances, everybody is expected to study the Quran. God does not ask people leading normal lives to sit back and expect scholars to learn the Quran and teach them the religion.

I contend that there is no sanction of a profession of "scholars" of religion anywhere in the entire Quran (including 9:122 for reasons I stated above). And all places where "scholars" are referred to, they are referred to negatively (e.g., 9:34, 42:21 -  even if you restrict the scope of 9:34). God refers to arguments and mutual blame game between religious leaders and their followers on the Day of Judgement in the Quran (e.g., 2:166-167, 40:47-48, 34:31-34 etc.). Even if you restrict the scope, since the all references are negative, and there is no positive sanction, I believe there is no such thing authorized by God.

I see the history of organized religion where professional clergymen have exploited the masses as a reason why this should be the case. I understand that you want to give benefit of doubt to those scholars who did not resort to certain specific traits you listed. I do not see the need to do the same. Even prophets and messengers of God earned their own living, and never asked for any wage for teaching people the religion (6:90, 10:72, and numerous other verses). Then I don't see why anybody else should.

Peace

59
Salaam Ahmad,

I see no problem with somebody expressing their opinion on any matter based on their personal understanding of the Quran (or "ruling" if you want to call it that). Anybody else is free to examine that opinion, and agree or disagree with it. Thats how we learn from the insights and the fruits of the study of the Quran from each other.

I have a problem, if that person makes money off of me, and makes dispensing his opinion on religion as his "profession", by which he earns his livelihood, making money off their followers. I understand that 9:34 is referring to professional clergymen who "consume people's money illicitly".

Peace.

60
General Discussions / Re: Valid/Invalid Salah
« on: February 12, 2018, 11:07:45 AM »
Actually, this happens to be just one example. Looking through Quran Corpus, I find that there are many descriptions of nullified works described in the Quran.

http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=HbT

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5