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