LINK TO THE ORIGINAL THREADhttp://www.salaatforum.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=328#p367by Joseph Islam , On God's Earth, Tuesday, December 06, 2011, 07:44 (9 hours, 5 minutes ago) @ amirabbas
Salamun Alaikum brother Amir Abbas,
Thank you for your question
With respect, there are a lot of assumptions in your argument which are worth noting and from my perspective at least, unravelling.
You say Prophets were normal human beings. This begs the question, what is a normal human being?
Yes they were 'bashar' like other human beings which refers to the more physical, physiological attributes of a human being. So they ate, married and procreated. I do not know of any reference in the Quran where it is asserted they were 'insaan' (human beings) like other 'insaan'.
No two 'insaan' (human beings) on the planet are the same.There is a difference between the two terms 'bashar' and 'insaan' in the Quran which is often missed in translations.
A human being is not simply a 'bashar' but is a product of many other faculties which make him into an 'insaan'. The word 'insaan' is formed from the word 'Ins' and points to such attributes as faculties, perception and
knowledge.Human beings have been granted different capabilities and knowledge. This does not stop them being a 'bashar'. We need to realise the difference when studying the Quran from its source text. This was no different for the Prophets who had been given different capabilities (2:253). There are many human beings today that can do fantastic things that not all other human's can do.
You say:
"could speak to birds and ants".Please can you provide your evidence where the Quran says Prophet Solomon could speak with ants.If Prophet Solomon could speak to ants, then the ants would have been able to understand Prophet Solomon's speech. The Quran only implies that Prophet Solomon was able to understand a female ant's speech or her communication method.
You say:
"...Prophet Solomon could understand the speech of animals..."Please can you provide me clear evidence from the Quran where the reader is informed that Prophet Solomon could understand the 'speech of animals'.I accept that 27:16 does not provide a comprehensive list of what Prophet Solomon could or could not do. Therefore, this verse is inconclusive. To be able to 'talk with', there is an implication of a 'two way conversation'. From the animal kingdom, birds are the only animals where a two way conversation is implied.
Please see my response to brother Jawaid.
http://www.salaatforum.com/index.php?id=358With regards rationality, you are basing your rationale on what is 'rational' in your perspective today. There could have been many arts or vestiges of knowledge that once existed that are either lost today, are remote, or cannot be replicated. This does not mean they are irrational or that they simply did not exist. Some may argue that the notion of a man who could have a whole book or a revelation inspired in him from a supernatural God is beyond rationale. But this does not mean it did not happen. But this is the argument that the Prophet's contemporaries made. Again, the question is about a subjective definition of 'rationale'.
Similarly, with regards speaking to birds, this is an area that is being better understood by science. However, here is an excerpt which may be of some interest.
"...Efforts now are being made to reconstruct the so-called 'secret language' of the Siberian Turkic shamans, and also that used in other areas of Siberia. Vestiges of the language remain incomprehensible refrains repeated in some shamanic performances; but a specific secret language has been verified among the Lapps, Inuits, Ostyaks, Chukchis, Yakuts and Tungus. The complete reconstruction has proved impossible as much shamanic lore has been lost ..."
"...The shamans secret language is an imitation of animal cries, or the sounds of birds. To know bird language enables one to understand all Nature's secrets..." [1]You ask the question:
'then, why would ants be afraid of the messenger of Allah?'Please can you elaborate for me how you have come to the conclusion that the ants were afraid of a messenger of Allah?
If you are ploughing through a pack of dogs in a vehicle, the pack leader may disperse his pack members so that they don't get crushed. Are the dogs afraid of you or afraid of being crushed?
With the Quranic text and what the verses may imply literally, either we accept them or reject them. We all have a choice to accept the Quran as a word of God or to reject it. The Quran does not force anyone to believe in what it says. It simply posits clear arguments in clear Arabic text. Also, the Quran's intention is not to confuse its readers or to only be understood by those that who have advanced intellectual faculties. It is a communication to mankind with simple arguments which should remain comprehensible to the masses.
We should also not incline to change the text or interpolate meanings if it does not fit our world view or rationale. Good 'mufassirs' (Quranic exegetics) should try to stay as close to the classical text as possible
and try to understand its multifaceted wisdom and not confine the interpretation in accordance to their world view. This applies as much to any classical mufassir as it does to one today. This is a generic statement and not directed at any personality, past or present.
Thank you for your question which I really feel does add value to this thread.
Your brother in faith
Joseph.
REFERENCES[1] STUTLEY. M, Shamanism - A Concise Introduction, First published 2003 by Routledge, Male and Female Shamans, pages 16-17.
--
'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act'
George Orwell
http://www.quransmessage.comCopyright © 2010 Quransmessage.com