Resurrection explained by a parable

Started by Mubashir, January 20, 2012, 09:34:57 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mubashir

Salam

Following are two versions of 2:259:

[Muhammad Asad]

Or [art thou, O man, of the same mind] as he who passed by a town deserted by its people, with its roofs caved in, [and] said, "How could God bring all this back to life after its death?" Thereupon God caused him to be dead for a hundred years; where after He brought him back to life [and] said: "How long hast thou remained thus?" He answered: "I have remained thus a day, or part of a day." Said [God]: "Nay, but thou hast remained thus for a hundred years! But look at thy food and thy drink-untouched is it by the passing of years - and look at thine ass! And [We did all this so that We might make thee a symbol unto men. And look at the bones [of animals and men] - how We put them together and then clothe them with flesh!" And when [all this] became clear to him, he said: "I know [now] that God has the power to will anything!"

[Amatul Rahman Omar]

Or consider the case of him (- Ezekiel) who passed by a town (- Jerusalem as it was left in desolation by Nebuchadnezzar) and it had fallen in upon its roofs. He said, `When will Allah restore this (town) to life after its destruction?' So (in his vision) Allah kept him in a state of death for a hundred years, then He raised him (to life). Then (God) said, `How long have you stayed (in this state of death)?' He replied, `I may have stayed a day or a part of a day (in this state).' (God) said, `(Yes this too is correct) but (as you have witnessed in your vision) you have stayed for a hundred years. Now look at your food and drink, they have escaped the action of time, and look at your donkey (too, years have not passed over it). And (We have made you visualise all this) that We may make you a sign to the people. And look at the (dead) bones how We set them together and then clothe them with flesh.' Thus when the fact of the matter became clear to him, he said, `I know that Allah is the Possessor of full power to do all that He will.'

I am sure it's me but I fail to understand, by the way this verse has been translated, how is it providing proof of life after death (for nations/individuals).

From what I have understood, a man is given proof of Allah's revival by Allah:

1. causing him to die
2. Resurructing him after 100 years.
3. Drawing his attention to his food and drink and his donkey to show no effects of decay
4. Giving him example of how the process of process of creation of life proceeds by bones being clothed by flesh.

I can understand Allah giving death to the man and reviving him after 100 years but would it not make more sense if Allah had shown him remains of his decayed body of his donkey and spoiled food as proof of him beind dead for such a long time?

Would appreciate your comments.

Mubashir

Truth Seeker

Salaam,

I am of the opinion that the donkey was not preserved, only the man along with his food and drink. If you go with what the translations infer regarding the donkey, the man when being told that he had in fact slept for 100 years, may well have thought that he was delusional as his donkey, food and drink were in the same original condition.

By having a visual representation by way of his donkey's bones, this would have further reassured him and also confirmed that what he was being told was true.
I say this because further in the verse, the man is being asked to look at the bones and how it is these that are put together and clothed with flesh by God. (As was the state of the donkey when he was with the man originally).

As the topic of the verse is about the man questioning resurrection, he himself was resurrected. Furthermore, resurrection is linked to eternal life. I think that the food and drink not being touched by time may well be referring to the fact that in the afterlife there will never be decay and that world will not suffer the ill effects of time as indeed everything in our world does. The donkey remaining only as bones signifies that on Day of Resurrection, we will be raised from bones and recreated as this is indeed an easy task for God.

I don't see how it would make more sense by having everything decayed, maybe the wisdom behind it is not clear yet. Would others  like to share what they think the significance is?

Mubashir

Salam

If the food had rotted and all that was left of the donkey was a decayed skeleton (which is what happens to such things over a period of 100 years) the resurrected man would have believed that he was indeed dead for a 100 years.


Truth Seeker

Salaam,

I agree with you that the scenario you gave in your last post would equally make the man believe that he was resurrected.

The contention I have is why you feel that would make more sense than the actual scenario depicted in the verse.

There is obviously a reason and significance as to why God chose to keep the food and drink free from decay and not the donkey. This is not to be overlooked, hence my attempt to understand the importance and offer a possible explanation as to why.

Mubashir

To help with the discussion, sharing a response:

Salam brother Mubashir,

 

My understanding of this verse relates to 42:51 where Allah spells out three ways/modes of His 'speaking/communication' with human beings.  The last one is 'sending of messengers' after 'revealing to them' but the first two are speaking through 'inspiration (wahi)' and speaking 'from behind the curtain (min waraai hijab)'.  The last one seems to be a subtle Divine 'suggestion' to someone, possibly in a 'dream/vision' state.  Regarding 'caused him to die' for 100 years, it may be of interest to note that the word 'maut' according to the Qur'an seems to be a temporal loss of consciousness'"and is described as 'taking back of the 'nafs'' by Allah either temporarily as in sleep, or more permanently as in death (till resurrection)'"39:42/6:60. Thus the 'sleep' is also a form of 'maut' according to the Qur'an.  I think this verse only describes a dream/vision (min waraai hijab) of someone as a Divine response to his serious doubt/question about how Allah will revive a town that has fallen in ruins.  In other words, the '100-year' was only a virtual vegetative state period as an 'example' (represented by the word 'kallazee-like someone who.  This makes sense to me because Allah promises to guide those who turn to him for clarification of their sincere doubts/questions and He provides answers without bringing up physical 'miracles'.  Allah would not have deprived of the questioner's natural life by taking him physically away from his friends and family for 100 years, nor would he deprive him of his donkey he uses for his living and daily transport.



You may have noticed that Allah 'seems' to 'speak' to this righteous questioner, hence my reference to the three modes of revelation indicated in 42:51. Wallahu a'lam.

 

Irfan

Mubashir

For the sake of further discussion allow me to share how G A Parwez interprets this verse:

258        O Jama'at-ul-Momineen! you will face great difficulties in the establishment of the Divine Order as was the case with Abraham. The king himself was his adversary and disputed even the existence of Allah merely on the basis of his worldly power. Abraham told the king that he believed in Allah Who has control over life and death. The king said that in his kingdom he had control over life and death. Seeing the king's mentality, Abraham did not pursue the point but said: 'If you have supreme authority in your kingdom then you should make the sun which rises in the East in accordance with Allah's Law, come out from the West.' The king was dumbfounded by Abraham's argument.

               Persons with such mentality seldom adopt the right path.

259        (From Laws relating to an individual's life and death We now move to the Laws relating to the life and death of nations.) As is known in history, after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the Bani-Isr'ael lived in captivity for about a hundred years. Then they were liberated and re-established in Jerusalem. This story has been narrated in the Quran symbolically as follows: A person passing through a ruined habitation asked if such a devastated place could have new life. Allah kept him in a death-like state for a hundred years, then gave him new life and asked him: 'How long have you remained in this state?' He replied: 'May be a day or so.' Allah said to him: 'You have been in this state for a hundred years but your food and drink has not gone bad and your ass is still standing as before. You should also reflect upon the process by which man develops from the embryonic state to where he becomes a living human being.' 

              When the passer-by had reflected upon the parable, he said: 'Now I can understand how Allah can give life to dead nations.' 
260        Each Nabi has been confronted with the problem of giving life to a dead nation. For instance, Abraham faced such a problem and said to Allah: 'What is the process by which new life may be infused into a dead nation?'. Allah asked him: 'Do you not believe that dead nations may receive new life?'. Abraham said: 'I do believe but I would like to know by what process, so that I can undertake it with full confidence.' Allah explained the process to Abraham through an example. He said: 'Take four untamed birds. At first they will seek to get away from you. Make them familiar with yourself gradually. This will bring about remarkable change in them. Even if you set them free and call to them, they will come to you swiftly.' This is how you must patiently reform those who rebel against your call and bring them close to yourself and make them understand and appreciate the Divine System. This is how they will receive 'life.' Most certainly Allah is All-Mighty, Wise. 

Sardar Miyan

Br JAI & Truth seeker to pl through light on this translation of GAP for our undestsnding wether it is Simili or Factual? Thanks
May entire creation be filled with Peace & Joy & Love & Light

Doc

Salaam all - I noted a parallel thread on the free-minds forum as well. Might prove useful. Thanks Doc.  8)

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603447.msg292009#msg292009


Saba

Aslamaolaikum br. Mubashir / all.

I find this a straight forward parable which shows that God is beyond human concept of time and that life, death and ultimate raising is within God's power. I find Yusuf Ali's note quite compelling:

Note. 305:

"A man is in despair when he sees the destruction of a whole people, city, or civilization. But Allah can cause resurrection, as He has done many times in history, and as He will do at the final Resurrection. Time is nothing before Allah. The doubter thinks that he has been dead or "tarried thus" a day or less when the period has been a century. On the other hand, the food and drink which he left behind is intact, and as fresh as it was when he left it. But the donkey is not only dead, but nothing but bones is left of it. And before the man's eyes, the bones are reunited, clothed with flesh and blood, and restored to life. Moral: Time is nothing to Allah; it affects different things in different ways; The keys of life and death are in Allah's hands; Man's power is nothing; his faith should be in Allah."

What would be the problem in accepting such an explanation or are we suggesting that miracles don't happen? If so, if we can't accept that God could resurrect the donkey, then how can one believe that resurrection on the Day? Surely we can't deny that too. It is within God's power to do anything.

My two cents worth. Thanks, Saba.

Mubashir

Thanks for your response Sr Saba.

It does makes sense. The main point of the story to provide proof for resurrection is the dead donkey revived. Some translators seem to suggest that the donkey was alive when the man was revived which creates confusion. If the food was preserved and the donkey was alive then what was the man supposed to take as evidence of resurrection other than Allah's assurance?

This also underscores the necessity of reading multiple translations when we find something confusing. Besides, we are told in the Qur'an that believers are not those who fall deaf and dumb over Allahs Signs (and make efforts to make sense of them).

All the best.

Mubashir

Salam Friends! The plot thickens !!

Here is what another brother had to say about the issue being discussed. Just sharing:

Br. Muhammad Shafi's understanding is very interesting. If I am correct (please correct me if not), he seems to be saying that the phrase 'lam yatasanna' (the aging of years have not affected them) is actually not a statement but rather a question 'Has not the aging of years affected them?' So everything got aged except the man.

This is a believable statement.  That may be the case. However I think Allah's question ended with 'How long have thou tarried?'  The rest is the answer, not a part of the question. Allah makes the statement 'lam yatasannah', instead of its interrogative form 'a lam yatasannah ?'. Of course, I understand the question marks are not found in the classic Arabic but the particle 'a' should have been there'¦I think.  The other thing is that the poor man punished for asking the question'he lost his food, drink, and a donkey!  Perhaps, next time he would be careful not to ask questions.

Concerning the poster's comments: A big problem with the notion that Allah caused the donkey to rot over 100 years but did not do that with the man and his food and drink, is that, Allah gave concrete proofs ONLY to this man to convince him while the fact is that hundreds of millions of people have the same doubt every day; How are they going to seek similar, fool-proof proofs? I believe  Allah has the SAME guidance for everyone.

Irfan


Subject: Re: 2:259

The phrase lam yatasannah in the original Arabic text means 'not deteriorated with the passage of time' and Allah Ta'ala is asking the man in question in the Verse (2:259) to see for himself whether his food and drink are not deteriorated with the passage of time and whether his donkey just reduced to broken bones. HE presents these pieces of evidence to prove to him that it was not just for a day or part of it that he had remained dead. The confusion in understanding the Verse is a result of interpreters not treating the relevant part of the Verse as a question posed to the man.

Wassalaam,
Mohammad Shafi

Joseph Islam

Dear Mubashir / All,

Salamun Alaikum.

Please see my response in two parts:


  •    Views already shared
  •    An understanding of the verse


(1)   VIEWS ALREADY SHARED


  • Whilst I agree with the wider remit which the interpretation of 'maut' admits, even that likened to 'sleep', I would respectfully have to disagree that 'ka'alladhi' (like the one who) can be stretched to represent an example as of one who 'sleeps for 100 years'.

    The two usages are not linked in the Arabic text which in my humble view is absolutely clear.

    The Arabic clearly says 'fa-amatahu-llah mi-ata amin thumma ba-athahu'. (Then he was made to die (by) God (for) a hundred years, then He raised him).

    The similitude 'ka'alladhi' (like the one who) is in my view, likely twinned in context with the individual mentioned in the previous verse (2:258) who disputed with Prophet Abraham. Both the disputer in 2:258 and the one mentioned in verse 2:259 had one thing in common. They both questioned God's power and there remains a sense of initial arrogance and disbelief on both their parts when read contextually.

    So there is no reason to think that it was inappropriate to take away a donkey transport when very fundamental matters of belief were at stake. 

    An argument had to be made clear to the individual in 2:259 and he was to be presented as a sign to the people (walinajalaka ayata-nasi). This would have been manifested to those around him when he finally awoke and through the narrative of the Quran, to all believers.

    This is no different from the sleepers in the cave who were also put to sleep for a period of time and whose case provided a clear sign of God's ability to resurrect the dead to those of the era in which the sleepers finally awoke (wakadhalika a'tharna alayhim) (18:21). Similarly, by virtue of the Quran, that narrative too is captured for all believers.

    These parables are used to demonstrate Divine power and Will coupled with the ability of God to resurrect the dead.

    Furthermore, I would not like to say what God would and would not do. Therefore, I would have to respectfully disagree with the comment "Allah would not have deprived of the questioner's natural life by taking him physically away from his friends and family for 100 years, nor would he deprive him of his donkey he uses for his living and daily transport. "

    God does what He wills and we are no one to question Him. There is much guidance in the story of Prophet Moses where he questioned why a boy was murdered, a boat was marred and a wall reconstructed even though the township had offered no respite and for which a payment could have been received (18:71-82). I would personally incline to take wisdom from these verses.

    There is also no indication in these verses, that everyone who may ask a similar question should expect a similar fate by sleeping for a number of years even if the verses are read literally. Manifestation of truth can occur in a variety of ways and God shows His signs in His wisdom to who He wills and in the manner He deems fit (41:53).

    God indeed has the same guidance for everyone, but some individuals are clearly utilised as an example for others.

    Furthermore, an above poster is absolutely correct that 'lam yatasannah' (implication - they did not change with time) is not in its interrogative form but reads clearly as a statement linguistically and within context.

(2)   AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE VERSE


  • My humble view is that this narrative is literal and no different from the case of the cave sleepers in Surah Kahf (Chapter 18).

    First, it is important to remember that his food remaining intact and the bones of his donkey along with all the interpretations that he may have considered were foremost for him to understand clearly. After the truth had been manifested and he had realised what had happened, he was able to conclude God's power over all things. This, I feel is clear from the verse.

    What various interpretations he may have considered, the multilayered thought process after which he concluded how God fleshes bones and all other mental ruminations are not captured by the Quran. Nor do I humbly feel there is conclusive warrant for the interpretation that the donkey reformed in front of his eyes from the Arabic text. The text can easily be read in the form of a contemplation. He may have sat there feeling beguiled for 6 hours for all we know. However, when he was finally convinced what had happened and God's power, only then would he have been in a position to acknowledge the truth and present himself as a sign to those around him.

    I don't think that the verse has been presented as a riddle to work out and conclude how bones are refleshed by virtue of CLUE A - his intact food and CLUE B - dead donkey's bones. Of course they are worth pondering, but these were primarily some of the signs he had to his avail.

    Therefore, I feel the narrative has been primarily captured to highlight that incidents such as these have occurred in the past where people have been used as a sign for others to convince them of an evident reality, resurrection.

    There will always be those that even if you took them up to high heaven, they would still say our eyes are befuddled.

    015.014
    "Even if We opened out to them a gate from heaven, and they were to continue (all day) ascending therein, They would only say: "Our eyes have been intoxicated: Nay, we have been bewitched by sorcery."

    I personally have no reason to question the literal nature of the narrative with the information that has been imparted.

PS: Dear brother Sardar - I understand this verse literally and with all due respect, I find that Ghulam Parvez's perspective is not based on a direct Arabic translation of the text with which I can work with. Therefore, I personally would find it impossible to comment.  I mean no disrespect to anyone, but I merely present my difficulty in this case.

I hope this helps, God willing.

Regards,
Joseph.
'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act' 
George Orwell

Saba

Aslamaolaikum br. Joseph.

Thanks so much for sharing your interpretation. Also thanks br. Mubashir for your response re: my two cents worth.  Saba.

Sardar Miyan

Br Mubashir, Salam, If I am not inquisitive are Mubashir Inayat ? Thanks
May entire creation be filled with Peace & Joy & Love & Light

Sardar Miyan

Allah had shown the mans food fresh to show him that even after 100 years he can keep it fresh while the body of donkey is shown rotted to demontrate the resurrection by clothing with bones,flesh & skin.
May entire creation be filled with Peace & Joy & Love & Light