Gender Determination Hadith
qas...@ziplip.com
According to embryology, the crucial event that
determines whether the embryo will develop into
a male or female occurs in the second half of
the sixth week of gestation.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/gender/determined.html#
The Prophet Muhammad - upon him and his House
blessings and peace - disclosed the exact same
timeframe fourteen centuries ago.
Imam Muslim narrates from Hudhayfa that the
Prophet said:
<<The sperm-and-ovum drop falls into the uterus
[and remains] for forty nights, after which the
angel in charge of fashioning it descends upon
it and says, "Lord! Male or female?" Then Allah
makes it male or female.>>
Another version from Hudhayfa in al-Bukhari and
Muslim states:
<<The angel is sent to the sperm-and-ovum drop
after it has settled in the uterus for FORTY OR
FORTY-FIVE NIGHTS and says, "Lord! Is it to be
wretched or happy?" Then this is inscribed. Then
he says, "Lord! Is it to be male or female?"
Then this is inscribed, together with its deeds,
its progeny, its term of life, and its sustenance.
Then the records are folded up and nothing more
is added nor subtracted.>>
Hajj Gibril
--
GF Haddad
Qas...@ziplip.com
David / Amicus
show that it is God who determines gender. The woman then is not to be
blamed if a girl is born.
In fact I would think Muslims would prefer girls over boys and even
rejoice more over the birth of a daughter. Why? Because Muslims like to
imitate Muhammad. And Muhammad had more daughters than sons and only
his daughters grew to maturity and it is only through the female line
(Fatima) that all descendents of Muhammad spring.
So when a man has a daughter he should rejoice and give thanks to God
that God has blessed him as He had blessed Muhammad.
Count 1
> determines whether the embryo will develop into
> a male or female occurs in the second half of
> the sixth week of gestation.
Lovely story. Unfortunately its not true. (the site you linked to confirms
this,BTW).
The gender of a child is 'determined' at the moment of creation. If the male
sperm carries the Y chromosome, gender is male, the opposite is true if the
male sprem carries the Y.
Its a common attempt by those interested in attempting to 'prove' the
validity of the quran and by extension Islam, however it is quite
inaccurate.
BTW - Mohammed probably adopted knowledge already being developed several
hundred years prior by both Greek and Indian thinkers. Hence the inaccurate
'clot of blood' and 'clinging' attributes inaccurately given to early
embryonic development.
EAC
> So when a man has a daughter he should rejoice and give thanks to God
> that God has blessed him as He had blessed Muhammad.
It's true that Muslims probably would prefer to have daughters than
sons.
Though with the Hadits indicated that in the future that females will
outnumber males in the ratio of forty to one, it's not like that
they're going to have any other choice.
Omar Mirza
<<According to embryology, the crucial event that
determines whether the embryo will develop into
a male or female occurs in the second half of
the sixth week of gestation.>>
> Lovely story. Unfortunately its not true. (the site you linked to confirms
> this,BTW).
Really? The website says "a crucial event that determines whether the
embryo will develop into a male or female occurs in the second half of
the sixth week of gestation." G. F. Haddad was quoting the website
almost verbatim. Where's the problem?
> The gender of a child is 'determined' at the moment of creation. If the male
> sperm carries the Y chromosome, gender is male, the opposite is true if the
> male sprem carries the Y.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that is nothing!
We Muslims say that the gender of a child was determined at the *very
beginning of creation* when God wrote out his decrees.
In fact, it was determined before that in the pre-eternal,
beginningless knowledge of God.
The information concerning the gender of any given child existed from
all eternity, so it is not AT ALL surprising from the Muslim point of
view that it should ALSO exist encoded in the chromosomes.
The point is that something very crucial for the manifestation of the
child's pre-determined gender occurs at a specific time on which both
the hadith and modern embryology agree. How did Muhammad know that
this was the time at which some crucial event occurs which determines
the gender of the child? Who told him that?
Your explanation is
> BTW - Mohammed probably adopted knowledge already being developed several
> hundred years prior by both Greek and Indian thinkers.
Probably he did nothing of the sort. In our day and age, here in the
University of California at Berkeley, where I am surrounded by highly
educated motivated students who have access to the internet and read
newspapers and have taken classes in history and have travelled all
over the world, hardly any non-Muslim I speak to even seems to know
that the founder of Islam came from Arabia. If this is the state of
ignorance in a place like THIS, how much worse the ignorance
concerning other cultures must have been when there was no internet,
when travelling to other cultures was frequently life-threatening,
where there were no schools and illiteracy was the norm, where
resources were scarce all year round, and where tribal conflicts
sapped the energies of the people on a regular basis.
To suggest that an unschooled man like Muhammad growing up in a tiny
settlement in a primitive desert environment far removed from the
major centres of civilization of the day somehow picked up esoteric
tidbits of information about Greek and Indian theories concerning
embryology is at best pure speculation, and at worst just
preposterous.
Do you have any evidence that the Arabs of the day were in any way
inclined towards scientific research into such matters? If so, please
present it. If not, please explain why you are so confident that
Muhammad had access to Greek and Indian embryological theories.
If you can, try to present your explanation without saying "well,
otherwise we would have to accept that the Quran came to Muhammad from
some extra-human source" because that would be question-begging in
this context.
Count 1
> embryo will develop into a male or female occurs in the second half of
> the sixth week of gestation." G. F. Haddad was quoting the website
> almost verbatim. Where's the problem?
The problem exists in ignoring the fact that if there is no Y chromosone in
the first place, subsequent events will not generate a male child. You have
to ignore this fact to make the statement (copied from the original post)
"The sperm-and-ovum drop falls into the uterus
[and remains] for forty nights, after which the
angel in charge of fashioning it descends upon
it and says, "Lord! Male or female?" Then Allah
makes it male or female."
Clearly this hadith is in error. I don't ascribe things which are in error
to an omnipotent and perfect being.
> We Muslims say that the gender of a child was determined at the *very
> beginning of creation* when God wrote out his decrees.
Wonderful. However Qaysoun was trying to 'prove' the accuracy of the hadith
and by extension the religion of Islam. I am simply pointing out how this
act is impossible. Nothing 'proves' Islam, and nothing in it is designed
to.
Islam is a faith, and as such requires special strengths in humans to be
accepted.
> Your explanation is
> > BTW - Mohammed probably adopted knowledge already being developed
several
> > hundred years prior by both Greek and Indian thinkers.
>
> Probably he did nothing of the sort.
You say this and then go one to state things you offer no proof for, then
challenge me to prove something to you.
For the last time Omar, Proof is not possible. It is more than reasonable
to hypothesize that Muhammed met many people in his career as a trader and
Caravan manager, and that he picked up quite a bit of knowledge along the
way. He may not have been educated, but considering what has been ascribed
to him he was obviously intelligent. He travelled the routes, he met many
people. He probably heard about Jerusalem from one of the early christians
he met allowing him to describe it to the Meccans, even though he had never
been there.
I don't see how it is an impossible leap of logic to consider that he picked
up rudimentary medical knowledge from people around him. To me it makes
much more sense than believing a god gave him this knowledge.
> Do you have any evidence that the Arabs of the day were in any way
> inclined towards scientific research into such matters? If so, please
> present it. If not, please explain why you are so confident that
> Muhammad had access to Greek and Indian embryological theories.
Tell ya what Omar - you seem very committed to challenging me. I will post
the information you desire regarding early Arabians and their proclivities
towards science...
*IF*
...you post your proof that this hadith ever came out Muhammeds mouth.
GF Haddad
> > According to embryology, the crucial event that
> > determines whether the embryo will develop into
> > a male or female occurs in the second half of
> > the sixth week of gestation.
>
> Lovely story. Unfortunately its not true. (the site you linked to confirms
> this,BTW).
Really? The site I linked is
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/gender/determined.html#
and states, verbatim:
"WEEK 6 (later) - MALE
"A crucial event that determines whether the embryo
will develop into a male or female occurs in the
second half of week six."
Hajj Gibril
Count 1
> will develop into a male or female occurs in the
> second half of week six."
How many times does this need to be repeated??
The crucial 'event' which determines if a baby will become a male or female
occurs at the moment of conception. If the sperm entering the ovum carries
the Y chromosone, then (chances are) a boy, if the sperm carries the X
chromosone then its a girl. NOTHING occuring in six weeks will change that.
IF the hadith quoted actually eluded to that - then I'd be inclined to agree
that it is a remarkable coincidence. However as stated the hadith is in
error, as it ignores the fact that a boy IS NOT POSSIBLE if there is no Y
chromosone and this is determined AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION.
I'm sorry - but your 'gender determination Hadith is wrong. It is in error
and there is nothing on the PBS website which confirms your hadith AT ALL,
because the Hadith does not mention the necessity for specific chromosones.
That is all.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Haddad) wrote:
>> > the crucial event
>A crucial event
Big difference.
Either you didn't quote right, didn't read right, or didn't understand
right, and thus said something completely different from what your
source says.
The Qur'an is not a science text. Neither is the hadith literature. To
read them as such is a major error.
God knows best.
Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/mcauliffe/
Heavy Music
http://www.ampcast.com/jeremiah
Denis Giron
> Another version from Hudhayfa in al-Bukhari and
> Muslim states:
>
> The angel is sent to the sperm-and-ovum drop
> after it has settled in the uterus for FORTY OR
> FORTY-FIVE NIGHTS and says, "Lord! Is it to be
> wretched or happy?" Then this is inscribed. Then
> he says, "Lord! Is it to be male or female?"
I think that Count 1 is doing a fairly decent job of bringing this
discussion into question elsewhere in this thread. My comments here
are a little more basic.
First, since you state that the above appears in the Saheehs of Imams
Bukhaaree and Muslim, could you please give exact citations? I am not
doubting that they are there (on the contrary, in Muslim I have found
a few ahaadeeth roughly to the above effect). Particularly the version
in Bukhaaree's work, as I would like to myself check the Arabic. Also,
from what Arabic word is "ovum" in the above being translated from? Or
is "sperm-and-ovum drop" being translated from a single word (like
nutfat)? Just curious.
Now, regarding what Muhammad is alleged to have said 1400 years ago in
the above hadith, it should be noted that some of the Talmudic Rabbis
are alleged to have said something roughly similar even prior to the
advent of Islam. Consider that in the Mishna of tractate Niddah 30a of
Bavli (i.e. the Babylonian Talmud) a debate is recorded between one
Rabbi and a number of other Talmudic sages regarding when the sex of
the child is determined:
"Rabbi Ishmael said [...] a male is completed by day forty-one and a
female by day eighty-one. The sages, however, maintain that both the
fashioning of the male and the fashioning of the female take the same
course, each lasting forty-one [days]."
So even in the above dispute, it seems we have evidence that some
prior to the advent of Islam had similar notions of gender
determination. Rabbi Ishmael claims his evidence is scriptural (though
this is disputed by whomever it is that wrote this portion the
tractate), while the sages claim that evidence on their behalf has
been observed directly. Note that in the Gemara of Niddah 30b, the
sages say to Rabbi Ishmael:
"There was a story about Qliyufetraa Malkat Aleksandrus*, whose
slave-girls were sentenced to death; they were examined** and it was
found that both the male and female were formed by the forty-first
day."
*All the translations I consulted (and I guess in hindsight this
should have been obvious) translate this as being Cleopatra queen of
Alexandria.
**The obvious implication here is that many girls were impregnated and
then killed, cut open and examined (for the sake of science, in some
sense). Rabbi Ishmael's only response (in the very next sentence of
the tractate) was "I bring you evidence from the Torah, and you bring
me evidence from fools!"
Regardless of whether the Talmudic account regarding Cleopatra is
historical or not (and later in the tractate Rabbi Ishmael seems to
himself quote a garbled version of the tale in his favor), this
creates some interesting implications for the sort of
scientific-hermeneutic approach that Hajj Gibril (GF Haddad) is taking
to the hadith quoted above.
First, note that prior to the advent of Islam it was taken for granted
by some that after forty days one could determine the gender of an
embryo via direct observation, and this might be the case, thus if one
had knowledge of this, it does not necessarily have to come from the
Divine.
Secondly, the above may not be observable at all, rather the tale from
the Talmud regarding Cleopatra is one of fiction (which is the
position I hold). In that case, also note that in both the Islamic
literature and the Jewish literature, a great amount of emphasis is
put on the number 40 (Muhammad being 40 when we was called to
prophethood, the Midrash saying something similar regarding Moses),
thus either of these texts making mention of something significant
happening after forty days could just be chalked up to typical Semitic
numerology (i.e. we do not have to necessarily postulate divine
guidance).
Third, and most importantly in my opinion, if a human being who was
not divinely guided said such before Muhammad did, that in itself is
evidence that one can reach such conclusions without divine guidance.
While I have not proven that the Talmudic sages quoted above were not
divinely inspired, I feel comfortable in assuming such.
So, in conclusion, while I have not demonstrated any sort of proof
that Muhammad was not divinely inspired (or that he got his
information from someone with some familiarity of Jewish traditions),
I think the above is sufficient enough to argue that these traditions
alone are not evidence of knowledge procured via divine guidance.
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org/home.htm
Shibli Zaman
Man, calm down. Don't act like the supreme geneticist of the century
with your screaming and definitive CAPS LOCK statements. Unless you are
laureled in this field then be more humble in your misppropriated
absolutism.
>The crucial 'event' which determines if a baby will become a male or
female
>occurs at the moment of conception. If the sperm entering the ovum
carries
>the Y chromosone, then (chances are) a boy, if the sperm carries the X
>chromosone then its a girl. NOTHING occuring in six weeks will change
that.
"NOTHING"? Really? And what happens, praytell, when MIS/MRF is not
delivered to a 46,XY zygote?
Want a hint? "Persistent Mullerian Duct Syndrome".
So, my so very intelligent friend, the determination of gender is -not-
certain upon conception as there are -numerous- factors that can inhibit
the normal development of male or female post-phenotype sex.
Remember: Hypothesis first, Conclusion last. Don't be so vehemently
opposed to a concept simply because it is idol-shattering for you.
So now that it has been amply established that the Hadîth is, indeed,
100% accurate scientifically, what will you say now?
Regards,
Shibli Zaman
Count 1
> delivered to a 46,XY zygote?
>
> Want a hint? "Persistent Mullerian Duct Syndrome".
200 cases ever recorded. Do you have any idea how miniscule that is? Are
you saying this hadith is accurate because it might explain an infintessimal
(percentage wise) number of cases? And are you aware it is found in males -
ie those fetuses that have a Y chromosone?
> So, my so very intelligent friend, the determination of gender is -not-
> certain upon conception as there are -numerous- factors that can inhibit
> the normal development of male or female post-phenotype sex.
Yes - I am afraid it is certain in the vast majority of the cases and an
inherited defect of sexual differentiation characterised by failure of
regression of the mullerian ducts in males does not change the fact that
this hadith - as quoted - is in error.
> Remember: Hypothesis first, Conclusion last. Don't be so vehemently
> opposed to a concept simply because it is idol-shattering for you.
LOL! I have no idols. Even science is wrong most of the time. However
when muslims attempt to prove the scientific validity of the Hadiths or
quran they should do so honestly. Attempting to suggest it is normal for
gender to be determined in 6 weeks after conception and 'science proves it'
is wrong. Gender is determined at the moment of conception in the vast
majority of cases. The existence of certain genetic defects does not render
this hadith accurate.
> So now that it has been amply established that the Hadîth is, indeed,
> 100% accurate scientifically, what will you say now?
This hadith is not and cannot be established as 100% correct scientifically
regarding the determination of gender by relying on an incredibly miniscule
and very rare genetic defect found only in cases were a Y chromosone is
present. -IE - this syndrome will not occur with two X's.
Wanna try again?
Denis Giron
> "NOTHING"? Really? And what happens, praytell, when MIS/MRF is not
> delivered to a 46,XY zygote?
>
> Want a hint? "Persistent Mullerian Duct Syndrome".
While I'm not an expert on this issue, as I understand it, PMDS causes
what might be called "male pseudohermaphroditism," that is the male
may seem like a hermaphrodite, but is nonetheless still a male. So,
unless I'm wrong, this is not really relevant to a discussion on
gender determination.
> So now that it has been amply established that the Hadîth is, indeed,
> 100% accurate scientifically, what will you say now?
With all due respect to Shibli, whom I have the greatest respect for,
I do not believe that he has demonstrated that the hadith in question
is indeed "100% accurate scientifically." Maybe it has not been
demonstrated that the relevant hadith is in error, but I think Count's
point about XX and XY chromosomes are still worthwhile, as gender
determination certainly can take place long before the sixth week (as
is alluded to by the very PBS site that GF Haddad called to witness).
Shibli Zaman
Giron) wrote:
>First, since you state that the above appears in the Saheehs of Imams
>Bukhaaree and Muslim, could you please give exact citations? I am not
I'm not sure which exact one brother Gibril was referring to as there
are quite a few, but the one from Huthayfah I think he is referring to
is the following:
"Inn an-nuTfata taqa`û fi-raHimî arba`îna laylah; thumma yataSawwarû
`alayha-l malakû...fa-yaqûl: yâ Rabba athakar(un) am unthâ?...etc"
"Verily, the zygote settles in the uterus for 40 nights; Then an angel
surveys its development...and so he asks: O Lord! Is it to be male or
female?...etc"
Now regarding the word "nuTfah" in the Arabic language it is used in
many different ways throughout the Qur'ân, the Hadîth literature, and
pre-Islâmic reference material found in classical Arabic lexica such
as Lisân al-`Arab.
However, the relative definition for this context is found as follows
in Lisân al-`Arab:
"wan-nuTfah: allatî yakûn minha-l walad"
"And regarding the 'nuTfah': It is that from which is derived a child"
[Lisân al-`Arab, ibn al-ManTHûr, vol. 9, Harf al-Fâ', FaSl an-Nûn]
For this reason, according to this definition, I have translated it as
"zygote".
>Now, regarding what Muhammad is alleged to have said 1400 years ago in
>the above hadith, it should be noted that some of the Talmudic Rabbis
>are alleged to have said something roughly similar even prior to the
>advent of Islam. Consider that in the Mishna of tractate Niddah 30a of
>Bavli (i.e. the Babylonian Talmud) a debate is recorded between one
>Rabbi and a number of other Talmudic sages regarding when the sex of
>the child is determined:
Denis, you know very well that the oldest dated full Talmûd Bavlî is
only 700 years old and POST-dates the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him) and the Qur'ân he delivered by nearly SIX HUNDRED YEARS! Most of
the Gemara is post-Qur'ânic and in some cases reactionary to the
influence and challenges of both Christianity and Islâm.
Thus, you can include the most likely of all possibilities that Jews
living in the realm of Islâm were readily exposed to the Muslim
scientists and doctors who, following medical analysis, would try and
validate the Qur'ânic text as is being done now. Then in a tit-for-tat
this was included in the Talmud as a proclomation of a miracle in the
Biblical text which is nowhere to be found therein.
Here's some "science" from the Talmûd attributed to the students of
Rabbi Ishmael:
"It is related of Rabbi Ishmael's disciples that they dissected a low
woman who had been condemned by the Government to be burned, and upon
examination they found that her body contained two hundred and
fifty-two members."
[Bechoroth, fol. 45, col. 1]
Ummm.....yeah...ooooo-kay...
When it comes to textual integrity and preservation, the Talmûd (not
unlike the Masora itself) falls flat.
The entirety of your hypothesis was based upon this very shakey and
easily discredited variable.
Regards,
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.NET
http://shibli.zaman.net
Shibli Zaman
<omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "NOTHING"? Really? And what happens, praytell, when MIS/MRF is not
>> delivered to a 46,XY zygote?
>>
>> Want a hint? "Persistent Mullerian Duct Syndrome".
>
>200 cases ever recorded. Do you have any idea how miniscule that is? Are
>you saying this hadith is accurate because it might explain an infintessimal
>(percentage wise) number of cases? And are you aware it is found in males -
>ie those fetuses that have a Y chromosone?
Conveniently, you snipped out your own quote. This is what you said:
"If the sperm entering the ovum carries the Y chromosone, then
(chances are) a boy, if the sperm carries the X chromosone then its a
girl. NOTHING occuring in six weeks will change that."
Now, sir, does "NOTHING" (in your rude screaming caps lock, mind you)
mean something other than "nothing" in your language?
You said "NOTHING occurring in six weeks will change that" regarding
the phenotype sex. Then when SOMETHING is provided you say, "Oh well,
thats just 200 known cases". Dude, give me a break. Such clutching is
indignified.
Fact remains that there are MANY things which can occur up to six
weeks that can alter the normal gender orientation of a child
regardless of whether or not they are 46,XX or 46,XY.
Some examples are various intersex disorders such as Denys-Drash
Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, Complete Androgen
Insensitivity/Male Pseudohermaphroditism, Mixed Gonadal Dysgenesis,
etc.
Now don't use silly arguments like "only 200 cases". It takes just ONE
case to utterly falsify your absolute statement that "NOTHING
occurring in six weeks will change that" and to confirm that around
six weeks the gender of the child is established and outside of the
initial statute of time wherein which such abnormalities may occur.
End of story.
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Denis, you know very well that the oldest dated full Talmûd Bavlî is
> only 700 years old and POST-dates the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
> him) and the Qur'ân he delivered by nearly SIX HUNDRED YEARS! Most of
> the Gemara is post-Qur'ânic and in some cases reactionary to the
> influence and challenges of both Christianity and Islâm.
I have to add something else here. The final redaction of Talmud Bavli
came after the advent of Islam. That is what I read in the book
"Introduction to Talmud and Midrash" and other references. Further, as
Shibli has pointed out the Mss of Talmud Bavli are indeed late. The
earliest one comes a few hundred years after the advent of Islam. I do not
have a list of Mss with me at work and I would be glad to provide later if
required. So, one has to also take into account the Islamic influences on
the Jewish doctors and their opinions.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Count 1
> (chances are) a boy, if the sperm carries the X chromosone then its a
> girl. NOTHING occuring in six weeks will change that."
>
> Now, sir, does "NOTHING" (in your rude screaming caps lock, mind you)
> mean something other than "nothing" in your language?
Fair enough. I retract the word "NOTHING" and replace it with the words
"NOTHING DESCRIBED IN THIS HADITH".
> Now don't use silly arguments like "only 200 cases". It takes just ONE
> case to utterly falsify your absolute statement that "NOTHING
> occurring in six weeks will change that" and to confirm that around
> six weeks the gender of the child is established
This is ridiculous. You're arguing the hadith in question is accurate
scientifically based on defects? This hadith should read "after 6 weeks the
angels come down and change the natural gender allah has already determine"
or some such thing. In the vast majority of human reproduction the gender
is determined at time of conception, and not six weeks later. Yes - there
are genetic mutations which can occur - but when i read this hadith I don't
see it relating to the minority, but attempting to explain HOW GENDER IS
DETERMINED. For the vast majority of people these genetic mutations do not
exist, meaning the sex they were given at conception is the same one they
will have after 8 weeks, and since there are no genetic mutations, nothing
will change that.
Denis Giron
> ...
It is good to have Shibli back in SRI, as it quickly raises the level
of discussion in the forum. I'd like to begin with the word "nutfa" in
the hadith relevant to this thread (which GF Haddad translated as
"sperm-and-ovum drop" and Shibli renders as "zygote"):
> Now regarding the word "nuTfah" in the Arabic language it is used in
> many different ways throughout the Qur'an, the Hadith literature, and
> pre-Islamic reference material found in classical Arabic lexica such
> as Lisan al-`Arab.
>
> [...]
>
> "And regarding the 'nuTfah': It is that from which is derived a child"
> [Lisan al-`Arab, ibn al-ManTHûr, vol. 9, Harf al-Fâ', FaSl an-Nûn]
>
> For this reason, according to this definition, I have translated it as
> "zygote".
With all due respect Shibli, I am sure if you asked ancient Greeks
what is the "spermatos," or ancient Romans what is the "semine," many
of them would reply something along the lines of it being "that from
which is derived a child," but of course this does not mean that
spermatos/semine is a reference to the zygote.
So I looked up nutfa in various Arabic-English dictionaries, and of
the ones I consulted, there is no mention of "zygote." Hans Wehr has
it being from the root natafa, "to dribble, to trickle," and
translates "nutfa" simply as "drop, sperm." I looked in al-Mawrid, and
again it is treated as being from the verb natafa, "to trickle,
dribble, drip," and is translated only as "sperm, semen." In Hava's
"al-Faraid," natafa is "to flow gently, to ooze, to exude," and nutfa
is just "semen." This quickly leads me to believe that the word
"nutfa" in the relevant hadith has a similar meaning to
spermatos/semine, and does not mean zygote or "sperm-and-ovum drop."
So I looked up "zygote" in a couple English-Arabic dictionaries, and
neither had any word from the nun-ta-fa root. Magdi Wahba's
"an-Nafees" simply had laqiha(?) [I'm unsure of how to transliterate
it, but it was spelled lam-alif-qaf-haa-ta/marboota] for zygote, and
the same word appeared in Hasan S. Karmi's "al-Mugni al-Akbar". If
these references are too vague/ambiguous, let me know, and I'll be
more explicit in my citations.
> Denis, you know very well that the oldest dated full Talmud Bavli is
> only 700 years old and POST-dates the Prophet Muhammad
It is certainly true that the oldest existing manuscripts of Talmud
Bavli do not date to before the advent of Islam.
> Most of the Gemara is post-Qur'anic and in some cases reactionary to the
> influence and challenges of both Christianity and Islam.
This I was not aware of. Maybe this is true of certain portions of
Bavli, but as I understand it, tractate Niddah shows no evidence that
the author(s) was/were aware of the advent of Islam or anything
associated with it (Muhammad, the Qur'an, Muslims). Maybe you could
elaborate with regard to the relevant tractate?
> Thus, you can include the most likely of all possibilities that Jews
> living in the realm of Islam were readily exposed to the Muslim
> scientists and doctors who, following medical analysis, would try and
> validate the Qur'anic text as is being done now.
Hmmmm... I don't see how that is the most likely of all possibilities.
On the contrary, while we don't have a manuscript of Bavli that
predates the oldest manuscripts of the Qur'an, most objective scholars
date Bavli's general completion to around the fifth or sixth century.
Now of course, one can argue that Bavli underwent several post-Islamic
editings, thus one cannot be 100% sure that a given portion is
pre-Islamic, and I agree.
However, with regard to tractate Niddah, authoritative scholars on the
subject date this text to about the second or third century, and the
opinions of such scholars are worth consideration. For example,
consider Jacob Neusner's article "From Scripture to Mishnah: The
Origins of Tractate Niddah" (Journal of Jewish Studies, vol. 29, 1978,
pp. 135-148). In pages 135-141 Neusner argues that some of Niddah
predates 70CE, while other porions are post 70CE, and some even
stretch into periods after 140CE.
As for the relevant portion quoted in this thread (the Gemara found in
Nid. 30a and the Mishna of 30b), Neusner (p. 141) dates it to the
Yavnean period, thus between 70 CE and 140 CE. So what we see is that
the authoritative scholars do not agree that the most likely
possibility is that this portion of the Talmud postdates the relevant
hadith being discussed in this thread. This is not absolute proof, but
it is nonetheless worthwhile to note that the general concensus of the
scholars has the relevant Talmudic passage predating the relevant
hadith.
> Here's some "science" from the Talmud attributed to the students of
> Rabbi Ishmael:
>
> "It is related of Rabbi Ishmael's disciples that they dissected a low
> woman who had been condemned by the Government to be burned, and upon
> examination they found that her body contained two hundred and
> fifty-two members."
> [Bechoroth, fol. 45, col. 1]
>
> Ummm.....yeah...ooooo-kay...
One can easily find all sorts of wacky stuff in the Talmud (and I was
not arguing otherwise). Furthermore, I was not arguing that Rabbi
Ishamel was correct (on the contrary, it was the version given by
those sages who disputed him that was being considered). Now again,
what the evidence seems to point to (and again, I am not claiming this
is absolute proof) is a statement by Talmudic sages that have the
determination of gender in the womb taking place after forty days
being made prior to the advent of Islam. Maybe you'll use the above to
argue that the Talmud was neither divinely inspired nor a scientific
text? That would be fine, but nonetheless the evidence seems in favor
of these men, who were neither scientists nor divinely inspired,
putting gender determination after forty days.
> The entirety of your hypothesis was based upon this very shakey and
> easily discredited variable.
I don't know about my variable being "easily discredited." I think you
have done a fine job of bringing the issue into question, but the
premise has not necessarily been discredited. For example, as I
understand it the oldest existing manuscript of Josephus is a 10th
century Arabic translation, yet despite this, the concensus of the
scholars is that Josephus predates the Qur'an by several hundred
years. So, with tractate Niddah, while we cannot be 100% sure what it
looked like in pre-Islamic times (or if it even existed in pre-Islamic
times), authoritative scholars nonetheless interpret the available
evidence as placing tractate Niddah well before the advent of Islam.
In the end, the final conclusion is that we have good reason to
consider it plausible that a human being could place gender
determination as taking place after forty days and do such without
being divinely inspired. Thus, while the relevant hadith may have very
well have contained knowledge given to Muhammad by Allaah, it is
nonetheless sensible for skeptics to postulate a natural explanation
for the relevant tradition.
-Denis Giron
GF Haddad
after the zygote stage and well into the fetus stage, at the 6th-week
mark, and mention that this threshold has to do with gender
determination.
It is true that the father gamete carries either X or Y and that this
is final at the moment of conception. However, this is inferred, not
directly observed. The finality becomes known to us only at the period
mentioned by the hadith. From our perspective, it is this 6th-week
point that connotes finality in the gendering, not a retrospective
gaze back to the moment of fecundation. This is why the site refers to
the middle of the 6th week as the (or "a", it makes no difference
here) crucial moment.
Furthermore: one would have to ask why the same words should be a
science-like observation on the part of a PBS website but an absurdity
on the part of a hadith. The similarity should at least draw one's
attention. Otherwise, what do you think the site means?
Note that the same site states that even with an XY combination, "if
the Y chromosome is missing the SRY [= sex-determining region of the Y
chromosome] gene, the embryo will develop into a female."
Anyway, scientific observation would confirm the hadith even if a
*single* exception to the gendering effected at the zygote stage were
known to have taken place, let alone 200.
As for the nice Talmudic documentation, regardless of its post-Hadith
dating, it would not necessarily discount a common revelatory source
if we accept the Rabbi's argument that his source is the Torah. Note
the words of another Rabbi - the Companion `Abd Allah ibn Salam - in
the hadith of dominant character and gendering: "I've come to ask you
something none would know except a Prophet and maybe a man or two
besides..."
But the Talmud is unreliable; witness the supposed story that an
autopsy revealed a 42-day old fetus showing gender. How so? Genital
differentiation remains invisible to the naked eye until the
fourteenth week or so. The 42-day threshold is about information of a
microscopic order.
As for the Semitic symbolism of the number 40: granted. But there are
other numbers that also match scientific discourse in the embryology
hadith series that I posted.
As for claims that "the Qur'an and Hadith are not scientific
textbooks" - whoever is claiming they are? They are much, much more
since science changes even its most fundamental tenets every now and
then. It is enough for non-Muslims to admit that there is *plenty of
science* there, in the most flattering sense of the word in their
minds. Even so, the probative force of the Qur'an and Hadith goes
beyond science since "science," in the Islamic view, is a conjectural
knowledge.
Hajj Gibril
Omar Mirza
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 22:29:07 +0000 (UTC), Qas...@ziplip.com (GF
> Haddad) wrote:
>
>
> >> > the crucial event
>
> >A crucial event
>
>
> Big difference.
Good observation, but it doesn't affect the issue at hand.
The hadith confirms that a crucial event in determining the gender of
a child occurs at the time established by modern science.
The hadith by itself does not commit one to saying that this is THE
crucial event.
And there are specifically Islamic reasons for this.
>From the Muslim point of view, the gender of the child was determined
when God wrote out his decrees.
This is entirely consistent with the fact that something crucial for
the manifestation of that gender occurs after six weeks.
Muhammad (pbuh) knew something crucial happened at that time, because
he mentioned in the hadith that the angel "fashions" the developing
human into a male or a female.
It is this "fashioning", or the emergence of the distinctive
observable sex characteristics in the body of the developing human,
that is referred to in the hadith.
Somehow, Muhammad(s) knew that this "fashioning" took place at a time
exactly in accordance with that yielded by the most sophisticated
scientific observation.
I am still waiting for a plausible explanation of how he knew this.
Shibli Zaman
Giron) wrote:
>While I'm not an expert on this issue, as I understand it, PMDS causes
>what might be called "male pseudohermaphroditism," that is the male
>may seem like a hermaphrodite, but is nonetheless still a male. So,
>unless I'm wrong, this is not really relevant to a discussion on
>gender determination.
Denis, in my last post on this issue I specified a number of defects
which result in a gender of "intersex" which is an official gender
being neither male nor female.
So, ultimately, (as much as this horse is being beat) there are
numerous factors that can alter the XY/XX factor in gender
determination within 6 weeks.
So
(A) The Hadîth remains without error scientifically.
(B) Count's "NOTHING" ended up being quite more than just "something".
I have just barely touched on the absolute plethora of things that can
alter gender determination at conception within 6 weeks. For starters,
I suggest those interested study the effects of Mullerian hormone and
the impact of any anamolies regarding its delivery.
>With all due respect to Shibli, whom I have the greatest respect for,
The respect is, by far, mutual if not more on my side.
Regards,
Shibli Zaman
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> This is ridiculous. You're arguing the hadith in question is accurate
> scientifically based on defects? This hadith should read "after 6 weeks the
> angels come down and change the natural gender allah has already determine"
> or some such thing. In the vast majority of human reproduction the gender
> is determined at time of conception, and not six weeks later. Yes - there
> are genetic mutations which can occur - but when i read this hadith I don't
> see it relating to the minority, but attempting to explain HOW GENDER IS
> DETERMINED. For the vast majority of people these genetic mutations do not
> exist, meaning the sex they were given at conception is the same one they
> will have after 8 weeks, and since there are no genetic mutations, nothing
> will change that.
I beg to differ with you, in two ways. First, up until a certain
point in the development of the mammalian embryo, there are no
gross differences that can identify it as male or female; at a
certain point in time, a hormonal signal, if it occurs, causes male
morphology to develop, otherwise female morphology develops. The
critical time for this signal either to happen or not is the same
for males & females, and also for males and females with the kinds
of abnormal sexual morphology that result with the signal doesn't
occur with XY chromosomal individuals or vice versa. So, at least
as far as the gross-level (i.e., visible) sexual equipment goes,
its presence is determined well after conception. So, on that
account, you lose.
However, the discussion is not about abnormal sexual morphology at
the gross level, but rather, about *gender determination*, which
is biologically much simpler (and socially more complex, but see
below). That is, when the sexual organs develop abnormally, what
you end up with is males with vaginas and uteruses (and usually
also testes and penises); however, they are still male, as was
determined at the moment of conception. Therefore, in the most
basic sense, gender is determined at conception, regardless of
various ways that the anatomical structure may deviate from what
is normal for males or females.
There are of course well known cases where people end up with extra
chromosomes: XXX, XXY YYX, and so on. What is the gender of these
individuals? It is rather arbitrary, since in the biological manner
in which "male" and "female" have been defined, they are neither.
Thus we might say that the gender of these individuals is socially
determined after they are born.
And finally, the best-known examples in recent years of
socially-determined gender are the so-called trans-sexual. Some
of these people have more than two sex chromosomes and the socially
determined gender given them by their parents in childhood ends up
not suiting them so they change it; most of them make a decision
to change their visible anatomy based on some psychological factors
that most of us do not understand. However, even if their surgeries
and hormone treatments do not change the underying genetic reality,
it has become common to speak of people who determine (i.e., change)
their gender in adulthood.
Here is another case where depending on one's perspective, one will
interpret a Quranic passage differently: (1) In the absence of any
embryological knowledge or interest, you can simply accept what is written
literally--gender is determined after 40 days. (2) With a little
embryological knowledge, you can assume that gender is determined at the
moment of conception, and so the Quran has erred. (3) With a little
more embryological knowledge, you can say that the Quran was referring
to a specific hormonal critical period that determines the development
of male vs female sexual morphology, and so the Quran is correct (and
it's a miracle!). (4) With a little biological knowledge plus some
knowledge of the history of medicine, you can say that some idea of the
40 day critical period for sexual morphological development was known
by the ancient Greeks and was part of contemporary folklore, and so
the Quran is correct (but it's not a miracle!). (5) You can take
into account historical, genetic, embryological, and social knowledge,
and decide that it's really not clear what the heck the Quran was trying
to say (and that's not at all unusual!)...
Greg Shenaut
GF Haddad
GF Haddad
> spermatos/semine, and does not mean zygote or "sperm-and-ovum drop."
>
> So I looked up "zygote" in a couple English-Arabic dictionaries, and
> neither had any word from the nun-ta-fa root. Magdi Wahba's
Nutfa is most definitely the male sperm-drop in one
place and the zygote in another. The same zygote is
also called a morula then a fetus. The apparent
discrepancy is due to the different stages of the
same object.
Hajj Gibril
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Haddad) wrote:
>Both the site and the hadith refer to some sort of threshold long
>after the zygote stage and well into the fetus stage, at the 6th-week
>mark, and mention that this threshold has to do with gender
>determination.
So what?
It is not inconceivable that after thousands of years some may have
picked up on a pattern something like "if mom is injured around six
weeks the kid has gender issues" and a traveling merchant may have
heard this.... just like all people have been observing red horses
giving birth to grey horses. The hadith itself has others sharing the
understanding. i.e. its not non-ordinary.
>It is true that the father gamete carries either X or Y and that this
>is final at the moment of conception. However, this is inferred, not
>directly observed. The finality becomes known to us only at the period
>mentioned by the hadith. From our perspective, it is this 6th-week
>point that connotes finality in the gendering, not a retrospective
>gaze back to the moment of fecundation. This is why the site refers to
>the middle of the 6th week as the (or "a", it makes no difference
>here) crucial moment.
Who is "our" of "our perspective"? Are you speaking for a group?
This paragraph totally begs the question of what "observation" means
when searching for truth. In science, what we can observe is enhanced
by many tools and methods. Does that make it any less direct of an
observation? I would say no.
Yes, perhaps we can look at fetal development and see genitalia form
with our unaided eyes-- I suppose that is what you mean by "direct
observation" though my guess would be that would be rather difficult
without the help of some instruments as everything is rather small.
And even still, we're talking about a chemical event that *then* shows
up in genital formation. So, what is it you want to directly observe,
exactly and thus say "final!"? The triggering chemical event, or the
formation of the organs? For most, an XY is enough to say "final!"
Regardless, unaided eye observation seems an untenable-- and often
discredited-- litmus test for discovering truth. Much of what we know
about sunnat Allah, the patterns in creation, is by using
instruments-- that makes those "inferences" no less compelling or
truthful than something seen with the unaided eye.
To say that the sex-determination of a child at the moment of
fertilization isn't "final" because it isn't "directly observed" is
facile, and certainly doesn't prove anything unusual in the hadith.
I suppose it comes down to just who is the "our" and "us" mentioned in
this paragraph and what is their perspective, exactly? It seems like
you want the XY reality to take a backseat so you can say a hadith
says something unusual and amazingly predictive.
>Furthermore: one would have to ask why the same words should be a
>science-like observation on the part of a PBS website but an absurdity
>on the part of a hadith.
Because they are not the same words. They are not the saying the same
thing. To say or imply they are is the absurdity.
>The similarity should at least draw one's
>attention.
OF COURSE there is or may be a similarity! People have been observing
breeding for thousands of years! It hasn't changed! But that is not a
non-ordinary predictive type knowledge.The hadith itself shows that
others understood things the same way as expressed by Muhammad.
>Otherwise, what do you think the site means?
I don't care about the site. (though it is always the case that "the
cause" and "a cause" are completely different statements. They are
never the same.. ) I do care about manifestly incorrect statements
such as those with birth defects cannot reproduce. I care about what
is, imho, a completely incorrect and retro approach to the Qur'an and
hadith. I generally never enter these types of threads, but some of
the manifestly incorrect statements put forth so strongly and with
such confidence regarding people with birth defects caught my eye.
>Anyway, scientific observation would confirm the hadith
And science confirms that volcanoes rumble and spew hot lava. Now,
find an ancient text that talks about plate tectonics-- and isn't just
idle speculation that hit it right.
The unusual thing would be if the hadith confirmed today's science.
But it doesn't mention anything about a double helix, or pairs made of
four chemicals or elements, nor about something in each cell of our
bodies that could give birth to a clone, etc., etc.
>As for the nice Talmudic documentation, regardless of its post-Hadith
>dating, it would not necessarily discount a common revelatory source
Or just common observations of patterns.... i.e. nothing non-ordinary
is being said. The source is most probably, most reasonably, most
simply thousands of years of people selectively breeding themselves
and domesticated animals....
>As for claims that "the Qur'an and Hadith are not scientific
>textbooks" - whoever is claiming they are?
Anyone who approaches them as if they were....
> They are much, much more
>since science changes even its most fundamental tenets every now and
>then.
Yes and no. What science does and how it generates and revises
statements regarding reality can't be summed up in such a sentence,
especially regarding assumed "tenets" of science.
> Even so, the probative force of the Qur'an and Hadith goes
>beyond science since "science," in the Islamic view, is a conjectural
>knowledge.
I understand science as the disciplined observation of sunnat Allah,
and that we are repeatedly told in the Qur'an to look at the patterns
in creation. That is, told to do science...
I go with Faruqi... if science and our hermeneutic of the Qur'an don't
match up something is either wrong with our science, or our
hermeneutic of the Qur'an. For him, that follows from tawheed.
But thank you for telling us "the Islamic" view. <cough>
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Mirza) wrote:
>Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message news:<6q6g9vklsmabq51lm...@4ax.com>...
>
>The hadith by itself does not commit one to saying that this is THE
>crucial event.
Right. I realized that it was from Gibril, not hadith wording.
My understanding is that the hadith are being completely misread and
the entire topic/approach/time spent on this imaginative issue is,
well, at best, an entertaining indulgence. At worst, it represents
unreflected-upon assumptions and presuppositions that then shape one's
approach to Qur'an and hadith in an unhealthy manner-- i.e. missing
the point.
God knows best, of course.
>From the Muslim point of view, the gender of the child was determined
>when God wrote out his decrees.
>This is entirely consistent with the fact that something crucial for
>the manifestation of that gender occurs after six weeks.
Well, first, I simply don't get your point. The decree is written at
the beginning of time and something happens six weeks into an
individual's development? So what? EVERYTHING is consistent with God's
decrees.
Second, and more importantly, I don't know how this could possibly be
consistent in the sense you seem to want to say...
God's decree and plan is written outside of space-time. It is not
written six weeks before, during, or after anything!
You seem to be making a categorical error.... talking about something
that is not even in space-time, and somehow locking it with a very
particular time and space and finite individual. It simply doesn't
make sense.
(Strictly speaking... "gender" refers to social identity roles of male
and female. We're talking about the sex of the child, not the
gender... strictly speaking.)
>Muhammad (pbuh) knew something crucial happened at that time, because
>he mentioned in the hadith that the angel "fashions" the developing
>human into a male or a female.
This assumes a degree of accurate biographical historicity to the
hadith that is highly questionable.
An issue of assumptions and presuppositions....
>Somehow, Muhammad(s) knew that this "fashioning" took place at a time
>exactly in accordance with that yielded by the most sophisticated
>scientific observation.
>
>I am still waiting for a plausible explanation of how he knew this.
Assuming the hadith even recounts "what really happened"....
And assuming the hadith documents something unusual being said....
There is a *very* simple, plausible explanation. He was a traveling
merchant..... he had opportunity to visit many people in many lands.
He seems a curious person-- after all, he searched for Truth.
Its quite possible he encountered a person or group who dissected
bodies long before it was allowed in the Euro-American cultures, and
thus may have directly observed fetal development to some degree, or
at least formulated opinions about that development-- based on their
pre-scientific observations of sunnat Allah/patterns in creation-- he
then accepted as "expert" opinions of the time which he then told
others about. There doesn't seem to be any need to appeal to the
non-ordinary to explain this.
There is also a major theological issue with this whole approach....
it turns Muhammad into something different from a human and a
Messenger who says "God is One". It seems to turn him into a kind of
soothsayer.
Y'know.... we can also read Nostradamus' writings and in looking back
see all sorts of amazing "predictions". But they don't really exist
other than as an imaginative projection backwards onto the text.
Its really a problem similar to those who want to believe in magical
multiples of 19 in the Qur'an...
Never underestimate the human ability to find meaning/see patterns
where there are none..... one can take Moby Dick and find
"predictions"-- I think there is even a web site that does so.
Now... if there was a hadith that talked about a double helix made of
four "elements" that is in every life form and determines eye color,
or something like that, well, that might be truly unusual....
The Qur'an, and thus the hadith, are about The Transcendent Unity. Not
embryology.
A book about trees is not a book about birds, though it may mention
them.
And keep in mind, today's science is tomorrow's mistaken superstition.
You can't count on today's understanding of genetics being tomorrow's.
And THEN what happens to the hadith?? Well, what happens is your
understanding-- and perhaps even your faith-- falls apart. The whole
approach is simply incorrect, imho.
Even so, again, to show something truly unusual was said you would *at
least* have to also present other contemporaneous statements on the
topic and show that the hadith expresses something simply unheard of
at the time, or so wildly divergent from other opinions of the time as
to be unusual....
Allah knows best.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>Here is another case where depending on one's perspective, one will
>interpret a Quranic passage differently: (1) In the absence of any
>embryological knowledge or interest, you can simply accept what is written
>literally--gender is determined after 40 days. (2)
<snip>
OR you can say the Qur'anic passage isn't about embryology at all, but
is a parable talking about The Transcendent-- that it determines the
course of development and even the sex of each individual.... that
doesn't necessarily hold for the hadith though.
GF Haddad
crucial event" happening at the six-week stage in
relation to gender determination is the hormonal
signal that causes sexed morphology to develop as
elucidated by Greg and that this is what the hadith
also meant by its six-week observation.
In light of this and other recent exchanges I have
amended the text to read:
According to embryology, a crucial event that
determines whether the embryo will develop into
a male or female occurs in the second half of
the sixth week of gestation. [FN: PBS website]
At that point in time, a hormonal signal, if it
occurs, causes male morphology to develop,
otherwise female morphology develops.
The Prophet Muhammad - upon him and his House
blessings and peace - disclosed the exact same
timeframe fourteen centuries ago.
The fact of the latter paragraph remains unchanged
whether or not such information was available in
Greco-Roman knowledge or Talmudic lore.
If one then insists on a borrowing on the part of
the Prophet, one would still have to explain the
process by which he left out the remaining 99.99%
of ambient knowledge or lore and selected only
what is scientifically viable.
As for a hadith on volcanoes and plate tectonics,
see Brother Shibli's "Fire Under the Sea? Sea Under
the Fire?" http://shibli.zaman.net/artgen.aspx?id=8.
Hajj Gibril
Denis Giron
> As for the nice Talmudic documentation, regardless of its post-Hadith
> dating, it would not necessarily discount a common revelatory source
> if we accept the Rabbi's argument that his source is the Torah.
The Rabbi made one claim (that gender determination occurs for one
gender at 41 days, and for another at 81 days), and argued that such
was derived from his interpretation of the Torah. This was disputed by
other sages who placed gender determination after forty days (who
called to witness some bizarre story about Cleopatra). The point
regarding this is final: the scholarly consensus is that this portion
of the Talmud dates to before the advent of Islam. Thus it is possible
(and even probable) that human beings said gender determination takes
place after forty days before the advent of Islam, and without divine
guidance. Once one concedes that it is possible for a human being
(without divine guidance) to place gender determination after forty
days, and do such before the advent of Islam, then we are no longer
forced to accept your implied conclusion that the one who uttered that
hadith could only have known such with help from Allaah. This does not
mean Muhammad was not divinely inspired; rather it means that nothing
in this thread proved that he was (though he may very well have been a
divinely inspired Prophet nonetheless).
Denis Giron
> place and the zygote in another.
Now, this may very well be true, but of course GF Haddad has given no
reason in his post to assume it is true. I made reference to a few
different Arabic dictionaries, and none seemed to know anything about
nutfa being a reference to the zygote. Why is that?
> The same zygote is
> also called a morula then a fetus. The apparent
> discrepancy is due to the different stages of the
> same object.
This seems to mean that what exactly nutfa means is not clear. If
nutfa can mean multiple things, how do we know the Qur'an and/or
ahaadeeth mean nutfa in one sense and not the other? Or do you just
choose the interpretation that fits the best?
Denis Giron
> If one then insists on a borrowing on the part of
> the Prophet,
One does not have to insist on any issue of borrowing. If it is
conceded that it is possible for people before the advent of Islam to
state such things, then we do not have to assume that the only
possible source is divine guidance. This does not mean Muhammad
borrowed it from some earlier source, or was not divinely inspired. It
simply means that it is possible for human beings to reach such
conclusions.
> As for a hadith on volcanoes and plate tectonics,
> see Brother Shibli's "Fire Under the Sea? Sea Under
> the Fire?" http://shibli.zaman.net/artgen.aspx?id=8
Earlier in this thread I believe you called to witness the whole Adam
was 90 feet tall polemic (which I'm certain is a hoax), and now you're
citing the above. I get the impression that you basically trust that
which you find on the net which is favorable towards Islam, and that
is a poor way of going about such things. I have the greatest respect
for Shibli, but I am not convinced by the above article. I think there
has been a misunderstanding.
The relevant hadith states that there is a fire under the sea, and a
sea under the fire (the Arabic seems to have more a poetic form that
is intended to have some sort of aesthetic value rather than be
something to be taken literally), and Shibli claims scientists have
discovered exactly that, calling to witness the following site:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-03a.html
What the site speaks of, however, is "water moving through the
heavily-fractured basalt." Basalt is not "fire" (rather it is a hard,
dense volcanic rock with a glossy/glazed appearance), and the water is
not underneath the basalt, rather it is flowing through cracks in the
basalt. In no way does the article allude to fire under the sea and
sear under fire. There is a difference between sea under fire, and
water flowing through fractures in ancient rock. This does not mean
the relevant hadith is wrong, but it is certainly true that the truth
of this hadith has yet to be demonstrated.
CooolBreeeze
> Earlier in this thread I believe you called to witness the whole Adam
> was 90 feet tall polemic (which I'm certain is a hoax), and now you're
> citing the above. I get the impression that you basically trust that
> which you find on the net which is favorable towards Islam, and that
> is a poor way of going about such things. I have the greatest respect
> for Shibli, but I am not convinced by the above article. I think there
> has been a misunderstanding.
COMMENT:
Dennis, regarding the 90 foot Adam, as Muslims as believe what the
Prophet of Allah s.a.w. says. As fantastic as it may sound there is
a scientific basis for such a height as enumerated by some Israeli
scientist in the following exchange:
*********************
Apparently the jews though it was absurd, but the Prophet of Allah
said it long ago!!!!
From: 'Abd al-Kareem (nycyberm...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Israeli Scientists Trip Over Islam
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
View: (This is the only article in this thread) | Original Format
Date: 2001-12-02 02:11:04 PST
Sobhan Allah! The truth of Islam is found in the last place you
expect. Read the following excerpt from the English section of the
September 2001 issue of the Hebrew-English Israeli popular science
journal "Ha-Mada Ha-Yisraeli B'Angleet V'Ivreet." Then read the
comments below. TEL AVIV, ISRAEL - At the recent Israeli colloquium
on science and religion, Dr. Shlomi Lesser of Hebrew University, and
the Chairman of the Hofesh V'Mada Society (a stalwart for deeply
skeptical Israeli scientists), led a heated debate between biologists
and ultra-orthodox Rabbis on the origins of life. Many of the
spectators, including those of a deeply religious stance, came away
with the feeling that the Rabbis had not done very well against their
"Epicurean" counterparts. The hi-light of the evening came when Dr.
Lesser engaged in a one-on-one question exchange with Rabbi Dovid
Brown of Yeshiva University. At one point Dr. Lesser asked R. Brown
how tall the first man was, to which the esteemed Rabbi replied "he
was roughly the size of an average man according to chazal [Jewish
sages]." From there Dr. Lesser revealed that genetic research has
revealed that the human race coming from a single pair of parents is
impossible in light of the biological bottle-neck [a term for the
strain put on successive generations by inbreeding] they would have to
travel through. "Our research, in conjunction with the research of
other respected institutions around the world, has demonstrated that
the entire human population descending from a single pair of human
ancestors is highly unlikely." stated Dr. Lesser. "It would seem that
the traditional view of groups, not individuals, evolving has been
corroborated; the only way man could descend from a single pair
(rather than from an entire group of transitional hominids) is if the
original pair were literally giants in the pre-nutrition age." As Dr.
Lesser pointed out, prior to the breakthroughs in nutrition that took
place in the 17th and 18th centuries, genetic evidence revealed that
man would have been shrinking if he came from a single human ancestor.
His calculations revealed that in order for the human race to reach
the state it was in during the 17th century, the "Adam and Eve" story
would only be plausible if the first man was 90 feet tall (which is
fantastic to say the least). "There is no other way man could
traverse the genetic bottleneck" Dr. Lesser again said. "If Adam was
the size of any other man according to the learned Rabbis of the
Jewish religion, this demonstrates an obvious absurdity to this myth."
[------ END EXCERPT ------] This is interesting to me because while
the biologists think they crushed Judaism, they actually confirmed
Islam! The scientists came up with genetic research that led them to
calculate the size a first man would have to be if the story was true.
They came up with 90 feet. Note that 1400 years before these learned
men came to this conclusion, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said
something similar: Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 543:
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Allah created Adam, making
him 60 cubits tall. [snip]" Two cubits is a yard, so one cubit is a
foot and a half. So for some reason, the Prophet (peace be upon him)
thought that Adam was 90 feet tall when he was created. It is a
belief of Islam that man got smaller as life went on. How did the
Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions (May Allah Almighty be
pleased with them) know about the effect known as "bottleneck," where
animals get weaker if they have genetic exchanges that are too closely
related?
Omar Mirza
> I have the greatest respect
> for Shibli, but I am not convinced by the above article. I think there
> has been a misunderstanding.
I do too. I think you have missed an important portion of Shibli's
paper. More below.
First with regard to this
> The relevant hadith states that there is a fire under the sea, and a
> sea under the fire (the Arabic seems to have more a poetic form that
> is intended to have some sort of aesthetic value rather than be
> something to be taken literally)
If you are right about the Arabic (though, frankly, I doubt you are),
then this would constitute a sound reply to the skeptical objection
which brother Shibli was concerned to address. That objection
proceeded by insisting that the hadith "There is a fire under the sea
and a sea under the fire" is literally wrong, the implication being
that this shows that the Prophet(s) was not inspired. If this was just
a poetic form, this skeptical objection could not even get off the
ground.
It is this objection that brother Shibli wanted to refute. However, I
don't think your way of interpreting the hadith is defensible. Why
exactly would the Prophet(s) be saying such a thing for poetic reasons
when his speech as a whole is devoid of poetry? What would be the
point of this poetic form? To what end was the Prophet(s) uttering
such a poetic form? Do people normally go around uttering snippets of
"poetic forms" just for their aesthetic value? These are a few of the
questions that come to mind when I consider your interpretation. No
doubt you have answers to them.
However, there is another reason for rejecting it. Muslim scholars
have always accepted the following principle for interpreting the
Quran and the hadiths:
"ANY UTTERANCE OF ALLAH OR THE PROPHET IS TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY UNLESS
THERE ARE COMPELLING REASONS OTHERWISE."
I think this is a very reasonable principle: I certainly adhere to it
witrh regad to utterances I come across in daily life. And some such
principle has to be used in interpreting any text, or else anything at
all could be interpreted as a poetic form.
I just don't see a compelling reason to think that the hadith being
considered is not meant to be taken literally. If it is so taken, then
it becomes easy to understand why the Prophet(s) might have been
saying it: he was merely recounting to his Companions some of the
hidden awe-inspiring marvels of Allah's creation, a goal fully
consonant with his mission and in accord with the Quranic command to
"contemplate the creation of the heavens and the earth."
Denis mentions that
and Shibli claims scientists have
> discovered exactly that, calling to witness the following site:
>
> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-03a.html
That site is meant to show the existence of a "sea under the fire".
But for the "fire under the sea", there is another site which Shibli
calls to witness:
"Regarding "beneath the sea is a fire..": Introduction to Submarine
Volcanoes http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Submarine/intro/"
It is to these two sites combined that Shibli appeals in his article.
The site you mentioned is merely meant to show that there is a "sea
under the fire": a subterranean sea that lies deep in the earth's
crust at a level even deeper than the submarine volcanoes that witness
to there being a "fire under the sea".
Shibli has presented a prima facie plausible case for the claim that
the sentence "fire under the sea and sea under the fire" is literally
true.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Mirza) wrote:
>"ANY UTTERANCE OF ALLAH OR THE PROPHET IS TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY UNLESS
>THERE ARE COMPELLING REASONS OTHERWISE."
>
>I think this is a very reasonable principle:
This would seem to contradict the Qur'an's own self-description of
being a book of parables-- some of which are clear in meaning, others
are not clear in meaning.
Parables are not read "literally" but symbolically. Something that is
not clear in meaning is not read literally.....
God knows best...
Denis Giron
> I think you have missed an important portion of Shibli's
> paper.
This stance is based on the fact that I did not touch on Shibli's
citing of an example of fire under the sea. It was not my intention to
dispute that specifically, but rather only the portion that argues
that water flowing through fractured rock is evidence of sea under the
fire, when the article that was called to witness does not argue any
such thing.
> If you are right about the Arabic (though, frankly, I doubt you are),
> then this would constitute a sound reply to the skeptical objection
> which brother Shibli was concerned to address.
I'll grant that. Keep in mind that I did not argue in my post that the
hadith in question was false (or along any similar lines that the
skeptic to whom Shibli was responding might have argued). The point of
my post was only to dispute evidence called to witness to support the
sea under the fire bit. Even if there was no evidence, the story could
be true, or it could be a metaphorical/poetical reference to something
else that is also true. I was not making a positive attack on the
relevant hadith.
> "ANY UTTERANCE OF ALLAH OR THE PROPHET IS TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY UNLESS
> THERE ARE COMPELLING REASONS OTHERWISE."
>
> [...]
>
> I just don't see a compelling reason to think that the hadith being
> considered is not meant to be taken literally.
Your point is duly noted, and I'll have to think about that for a
while (my assumption about a poetic device was drawn from the nature
of the Arabic, which essentially rhymes with itself, and I'm more than
willing to concede that my assumption was not based on a solid
foundation).
> Shibli has presented a prima facie plausible case for the claim that
> the sentence "fire under the sea and sea under the fire" is literally
> true.
That is certainly true, but I was trying to go beyond the prima facie
realm. Shibli has certainly demonstrated that it is plausible to
consider this hadith literally true. My only point was that his
article does not demonstrate it actually is true (this does not, by
the way, mean that it is false). The relevant Arabic (setting aside
the part about not sailing unless going on Hajj or performing umrah,
as per the entire tradition in Sunan Abu Da'ood Bk 14, #2483) is
"tahta 'l-bahr naaran *WA* tahta 'l-nar bahran."
In light of the fact that this is a conjunctive proposition, both
elements must be proven true in order for the statement to be true. I
have not questioned one element (the fire under the sea), but have
noted that evidence to support the truth of the other element (sea
under the fire) has not been provided, thus Shibli's article does not
actually demonstrate that the proposition put forth by the hadith is
true. That was my only point.
Denis Giron
> Dennis, regarding the 90 foot Adam, as Muslims as believe what the
> Prophet of Allah s.a.w. says. As fantastic as it may sound there is
> a scientific basis for such a height as enumerated by some Israeli
> scientist in the following exchange:
> said it long ago!!!!
This is understood. I am very familiar with that polemic (it is the
very polemic I was making reference to!), as it appears all over the
net and even, as your post noted, here on usenet. My argument was that
GF Haddad is simply citing that which he finds on the net which is
favorable to Islam. While I don't intend this to come off as
offensive, I have the same opinion of you. I don't think GF Haddad has
actually done any investigation verifying the claims I criticized
(Adam being 90 feet tall, a sea under the fire, et cetera), rather he
assumed they were true on the grounds that (1) they were found on the
net, and (2) they were favorable to Islam.
Now you yourself have called to witness the 90-foot polemic, and you
have, in the past, called to witness a number of other examples of the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Islamic corpora. I get the
impression that you have not actually investigated these claims (such
as this one about Adam being 90 feet tall being confirmed by Jewish,
how convenient by the way, scientists, or some other claim). My only
argument was that one should be careful, and not assume that something
is true just because it is on the net and favorable to Islam.
Omar Mirza
elements must be proven true in order for the statement to be true. I
have not questioned one element (the fire under the sea), but have
noted that evidence to support the truth of the other element (sea
under the fire) has not been provided, thus Shibli's article does not
actually demonstrate that the proposition put forth by the hadith is
true. That was my only point. >>
Let me quote from Shibli's site here
''Therefore, you have 8,500 feet of ocean, under it fiery lava, 1,000
feet beneath that you have a subterranean ocean. So...
"Under the sea is a fire, and under the fire is a sea.."
Now, praytell, who knew this in the 7th century AD and how did a
desert Arab in that century who claimed to be sent by God mysteriously
know that? This is a question that behooves the skeptics to answer.''
Shibli relies on the figures given in the two articles to argue that
there is a "fire under the sea": the "sea" is found at a lower level
than is the "fire".
This, Shibli's defense of a "sea under the fire" does not depend only
on the one article that Denis quoted, but also on the other article:
the data from both these articles combined yield Shibli's intended
conclusion.
So I maintain Denis has still not dealt with Shibli's argument (no
doubt he will get to it), and that the evidence for there being a "sea
under the fire" is prima facie strong.
Omar Mirza
<snip>
> This would seem to contradict the Qur'an's own self-description of
> being a book of parables
You will have to say what you mean by "parable": what the Quran says
about itself using the word "mithal" can be adequately translated
using words other than "parable", so I'm not sure where you get this
"self-description" of the Quran.
In that sense of "parable" in English according to which a parable is
a fictional story presented for its symbolism, I doubt there are meant
to be any parables at all in the Quran: nothing there is meant to be
fictional, although it may well also have a symbolic meaning in
addition to the plain literal meaning. The Sufis, like Ibn Arabi, love
this sort of thing, but do not deny the plain literal meaning.
Nowhere does the Quran describe itself as a "book of parables", if by
"parable" you mean something which is not to be taken literally, but
only symbolically.
What it says is that Allah "coins similitudes" for men. This merely
implies that among the ways in which Allah communicates, He "coins
similitudes": it does not mean or imply that this is the predominant
way in which he communicates. This is a standard way of explaining
things to people: get your point across by giving them analogies,
similitudes, likenesses, or examples. It is among the tools Allah uses
The principle that I mentioned above does not in any way contradict
what the Quran says about itself.
> Parables are not read "literally" but symbolically.
I wish people would not put scare quotes around words. It makes it
hard to understand what they mean.
Allah tells us that Jesus was born of a virgin. It is utterly
unacceptable (and in fact it would be the height of imbecility) to
treat this story as merely a parable, devoid of literal truth. Rather
it is meant to be a literal description of what actually happened: a
virgin gave birth to a son by Divine permission. The same holds true
of all the miracles reported in the Quran: they are not meant to be
read only in symbolic terms (I do not wish to deny the existence of a
symbolic level of meaning, but that is not relevant here.)
>Something that is
> not clear in meaning is not read literally.....
Aned something which is clear in meaning is read literally unless
there are compelling reasons to think otherwise, whether these are
from the context, or from known laws of Arabic usage, or anything
else.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Mirza) wrote:
>Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message news:<7a4iav0c3pe8l0cuc...@4ax.com>...
>
>
><snip>
>
>> This would seem to contradict the Qur'an's own self-description of
>> being a book of parables
>In that sense of "parable" in English according to which a parable is
>a fictional story
Not necessarily. A non-fiction story can be used as a parable.
>What it says is that Allah "coins similitudes" for men.
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand either of the English
words (parable and similitude) or how they are used.
If anything it comes down to the Arabic word.... others here would be
able to tell us more about the word in question.
Here is the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary for
"parable":
"A comparison, a SIMILITUDE; any saying or narration in which
something is expressed in terms of something else; an allegory.....
"...A fictious narrative or allegory (usually something that might
naturally occur), by which moral or spiritual relations are typically
figured or set forth...."
The emphasis on "similitude" is mine, of course.
A pretty good description of the Qur'an which tells us stories-- and
even tells us it is going to tell us stories-- to describe the nature
of The Transcendent and our relationship with The Transcendent. The
Qur'an presents us with parables and tells us that is what it is going
to do.
If you want to take anything literally THAT is the statement/ayat to
take literally because it is a foundational ayat that instructs you
how to read the rest of the book.... ignore it, and chances are you
will misread everything else to come.
Of course, my position is that is exactly what is happening with
people who are fascinated by, and indulge in, and propogate-- as Denis
Giron puts it-- a scientific-hermeneutic of the Qur'an (and now, even
the hadith). Though God knows best, of course, and will tell us all
about it.
>This merely
>implies that among the ways in which Allah communicates, He "coins
>similitudes": it does not mean or imply that this is the predominant
>way in which he communicates.
Yes it does, at least as far as the Qur'anic communication goes. Allah
Most High also communicates in other ways, for instance, by means of
the patterns in creation-- sunnat Allah.
A similitude is NOT "literal" in the sense you want it to be. Or
perhaps it might be more accurate to say it is *completely irrelevant*
to a proper reading of the similitude.
You've contradicted the principle you put forth. You don't want to
take that one verse literally, but make it mean something else! The
fact seems to be the Qur'an describes itself as presenting parables--
some of which will be clear in meaning, others not.
And... similitude and parable are pretty much the same thing, if you
didn't pick up on that yet.
> This is a standard way of explaining
>things to people: get your point across by giving them analogies,
>similitudes, likenesses, or examples. It is among the tools Allah uses
Yes. Those are also called parables.
And none of these are "literal" in the sense you want them to be-- not
analogies, not likenesses, not similitudes.
The principle you put forth is simply incorrect, it would seem to me,
and hopefully, now to you too-- by your own words and further thought
and a better understanding of the words in question. (Though someone
needs to expound on the Arabic word.)
>The principle that I mentioned above does not in any way contradict
>what the Quran says about itself.
Yes it does and so are you contradicting yourself. At least with
regard to this topic and ayat. The literal reading of this ayat does
appear to be "parables" or even "similitudes" which are themselves not
read literally in the sense you seem to want.
Or rather, whether they are literally true or not is completely
irrelevant to the point and purpose of telling the stories in the
first place.
>> Parables are not read "literally" but symbolically.
>
>I wish people would not put scare quotes around words. It makes it
>hard to understand what they mean.
It is true the issue usually comes down to what words mean-- that is,
hermeneutics-- the interpretation of meaning out of what we experience
and then communicating those meanings.
When we get to these types of discussions it is important that people
clearly define words. If they admit various meanings, quotes can help
point that out. I'm sorry they frighten you. They're just quote marks.
They don't bite or anything. This discussion of "literal" brings us
into the realms of epistimology-- theories of knowledge-- which then
may use the word "literal" in various ways and with subtle gradations
of meaning. So, I put it in quotes because we are very close to the
point where we would have to spell out what we mean when using the
word. We're moving from an everyday use of these words into a more
specialized use of these words.
Now, I've given the standard definition of "parable" from THE
dictionary of the English language. Someone might want to do the same
for the Arabic word in question.
>Allah tells us that Jesus was born of a virgin. It is utterly
>unacceptable (and in fact it would be the height of imbecility) to
>treat this story as merely a parable, devoid of literal truth.
Parables are never "mere" and do and can express truth, and "born of
a virgin" in a book of parables, analogies, likenesses and similitudes
admits a wide variety of possible meanings.
The question is: express truth about *what* exactly? A truth about
history? Embryology? Something that is or can be confirmed in a
laboratory? Something that can be "proven"? Prove a rose is beautiful!
When you do that, I'll know this approach to the Qur'an is correct!
Your position and approach (shared with many others it would seem) is
actually very "Western" if by that we mean expressive of a
Newtonian-Cartesian mechanistic world-view (rather than a tawheedian
world-view) and expressive of some Enlightenment ideals that have been
shown to be, at best, naive.
Again... it is a confusion of literary genre.... you want the Qur'an
to be about things like history (i.e. what "really happened"), and
science and embryology, rather that what it IS about: The Transcendent
Mystery.
No wonder the general Qur'anic traditions are such a mess
theologically, socially, and psychologically..... it is like reading a
book about trees and thinking it is about birds simply because it
mentions birds so let's talk and argue endlessly about birds, rather
than trees. That's just kind of dumb, wouldn't you think? If you want
to read and discuss birds, get a book about birds.
And then, will you read a book of poems? Fantasy stories? Biology
texts? Science fiction? A naturalist's journal? Or perhaps you will
read a book of similitudes, analogies, and likenessess-- that is,
parables setting forth moral and spiritual relationships.
Each type needs to be read properly. Confuse the literary genre and
you're in trouble right from the start.
God knows best.
Omar Mirza
<snip>
> I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand either of the English
> words (parable and similitude) or how they are used.
No need to apologise, because you apparently don't have such a good
grasp on these concepts yourself, if you don't mind me saying so.
You said that the Quran is a "book of parables", by its own
"self-description".
Well, what is that "self-description"? Can you quote the verse in
question? The only verse I can think of is one which says "God strikes
similitudes (mithal) for men".
Now how exactly does this contradict the principle I quoted earlier?
That says that any utterance of Allah must be taken literally UNLESS
there are compelling reasons otherwise. This does not deny the
existence of things in the Quran that are not meant to be read
literally: it is a principle that explains how such passages are to be
identified in the first place. The default reading must be literal.
The only way I can see you might think a contradiction arises is if
you interpret the Quranic saying "God strikes similitudes for men" to
mean
"The Quran consists primarily of parables that are not meant to be
read literally."
If THIS is what you take the Quranic verse to mean, then I can see why
you think this contradicts the principle I quoted: if the Quran
PRIMARILY consists of parables that are not meant to be read
literally, then the default reading of the Quran will not be a literal
one, as required by the principle. (Even this is wrong, but it is the
only way I can see of making sense of what you write.)
But why on earth would you take it to mean that? The verse only
describes something that Allah does WITHIN the Quran. It does not
indicate in any way that the Quran consists *primarily* of parables,
(where these are not supposed to be read literally): in fact the word
"mithal" means "similitude" or "example" more generally, and does not
necessarily indicate "parable" in any sense that requires a parable is
not meant to be read literally.
One of the sense of parable you cite is this one
> "...A fictious narrative or allegory (usually something that might
> naturally occur), by which moral or spiritual relations are typically
> figured or set forth...."
In this sense of "parable", what makes you think the verse in question
is saying that Allah strikes parables for men? You yourself indicated
that a "non-fiction story can be used as a parable"; thus, ACCORDING
TO YOU, the fact that Allah uses parables in the Quran does not imply
that these parables are not also literally true, and hence they could
well be intended to be read as literally true, alongside being read as
parables. Since you grant this possibility, I see no reason why you
should have any problem at all with the standard principle I quoted
earlier regarding Quran interpretation.
There is no contradiction between the verse I cited and the principle
I cited, unless you adopt a blatantly confused intepretation of the
verse, by reading into it things that are not there.
> A pretty good description of the Qur'an which tells us stories-- and
> even tells us it is going to tell us stories-- to describe the nature
> of The Transcendent and our relationship with The Transcendent.
But the stories are to be taken literally unless there is compelling
reason to think otherwise. This includes, say, the story of Solomon
speaking to birds. Do you take this to be literally true, or not.
The
> Qur'an presents us with parables and tells us that is what it is going
> to do.
And as you noted, a non-fiction story can be used as a parable. That
is exactly what the stories in the Quran are (non-fiction stories),
and these must be taken as such unless there is compelling reason to
think otherwise.
> If you want to take anything literally THAT is the statement/ayat to
> take literally because it is a foundational ayat that instructs you
> how to read the rest of the book.... ignore it, and chances are you
> will misread everything else to come.
Taken literally, the ayat does not contradict what Muslims have known
all along: that the Quran is to be understood literally unless there
is some compelling reason to think otherwise.
I had written
> >This merely
> >implies that among the ways in which Allah communicates, He "coins
> >similitudes": it does not mean or imply that this is the predominant
> >way in which he communicates.
And Jeremiah replied
> Yes it does, at least as far as the Qur'anic communication goes.
Balderdash.
<snip>
> A similitude is NOT "literal" in the sense you want it to be.
As you said "A non-fiction story can be used as a parable."
>Or
> perhaps it might be more accurate to say it is *completely irrelevant*
> to a proper reading of the similitude.
Rubbish. It will vary with the similitude and the intentions of the
author of the similitude. If I want to tell my son of the consequence
of his using drugs, I may well cite him analogous cases of what
happened to those who used drugs before him. The whole point of these
examples is that they describe TRUE events. They definitely serves as
parables for my son. But they are meant to be read as LITERALLY TRUE.
The literal understanding of the stories of the Prophets is certainly
not
"completely irrelevant" to a proper reading of them. It is most
definitely a part of what we are intended to understand from these
stories that these events took place as described in the Quran, and
that is why anyone who disputes the virgin birth has left the faith,
and Allah is our refuge. Belief in the Prophets is a part of faith, as
described in the Quran itself...or is that statement a "parable" for
you?
> You've contradicted the principle you put forth.
Totally different. You are confirming the principle by what you write.
Whether you have picked up on it or not, you are actually reasoning in
much the way the principle demands,(flawed though your application of
the principle is.)
>You don't want to
> take that one verse literally, but make it mean something else!
On the contrary, I am taking it utterly literally. I am refusing to
read into it anything more than what it says: Alah uses similitudes,
or parables, or analogies, or examples. None of this contadicts the
standard commonsense ruke of interpretation laid down by the ulema: a
passage of the Quran is meant to be read literally unless there are
compelling reasons otherwise.
The
> fact seems to be the Qur'an describes itself as presenting parables--
> some of which will be clear in meaning, others not.
The Quran *describes* itself that way. It is literally true that the
Quran contains parables. Having read the Quran in this literal sense,
where exactly do you want to go from here?
For example, in the Quran we find
"O men! Here is a similitude set forth so pay heed to it! Those on
whom you call besides Allah could not create a fly, even though they
banded together for the purpose..."
There is a similitude here, but everything that the Quran says here is
meant to be literally true....it states a literal truth concerning the
capabilities of those that the pagans called upon apart from
Allah...pretty interesting, huh?
> And... similitude and parable are pretty much the same thing, if you
> didn't pick up on that yet.
LOL! You mean they're only "pretty much" the same thing? Could it be
that there are varying senses in which these words are used? Recall
one of the lines from the OED you quoted to me
> "...A FICTITIOUS narrative or allegory (usually something that might
> naturally occur), by which moral or spiritual relations are typically
> figured or set forth...." (my emphasis)
Now, not every similitude is a parable in ths sense. I just quoted one
from the Quran (from memory, but it is fairly accurate).
> > This is a standard way of explaining
> >things to people: get your point across by giving them analogies,
> >similitudes, likenesses, or examples. It is among the tools Allah uses
>
> Yes. Those are also called parables.
Not every example or similitude is a parable in the sense needed by
your argument.
I can't be bothered to go through the rest of your post. What you
write is clearly a parable or a similitude, one which is unclear to
me.
Shibli Zaman
> The relevant hadith states that there is a fire under the sea, and a
> sea under the fire (the Arabic seems to have more a poetic form that
> is intended to have some sort of aesthetic value rather than be
> something to be taken literally), and Shibli claims scientists have
Denis, this is irresponsible of you. You know better than to arbitrarily
apply allegory to a statement that is very literal in the absence of ANY
evidence to suggest euphamism. Now, you are forced to address the
following question:
* What exactly do you know about Arabic poetry? Can you cite even one
solitary rule to substantiate that this Hadîth is a poetic euphemism or
allegory? *
If you can not address this question, than to claim such without any
evidence is careless. You had to know that you'd get nailed for this.
> discovered exactly that, calling to witness the following site:
>
> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-03a.html
It is obvious, that either a) You didn't read the article at all, or b)
You are intentionally misrepresenting my data. Knowing you, I wish to
disregard the possibility of option "b". Nonetheless, it is not
respectful to respond to something without even reading it properly.
Personally, I do not appreciate this total misrepresentation my data.
Let me break this down...
1) "FIRE UNDER THE SEA"
First I substantiated that there is fire under the sea in the following
rudimentary resource:
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Submarine/intro/
Which states:
"The most productive volcanic systems on Earth are hidden under an
average of 8.500 feet (2.600 m) of water. Beneath the oceans a global
system of mid-ocean ridges produces an estimated 75% of the annual
output of magma. An estimated 0.7 cubic miles (3 cubic kilometers) of
lava is erupted. The magma and lava create the edges of new oceanic
plates and supply heat and chemicals to some of the Earth's most unusual
and rare ecosystems."
I hope you know what Magma and Lava are. They are fiery molten rock
which is often literally ablaze. Hence, *THIS* is the fire under the
sea, and *NOT* the basalt you cite! Ignoring this, you erroneously
blarney my data saying I was claiming Basalt is fire? I find it hard to
excuse this.
2) "SEA UNDER THE FIRE"
> What the site speaks of, however, is "water moving through the
> heavily-fractured basalt." Basalt is not "fire" (rather it is a hard,
> dense volcanic rock with a glossy/glazed appearance), and the water is
> not underneath the basalt, rather it is flowing through cracks in the
This is the "sea under the fire", *NOT* the "fire under the sea". I
think the only misunderstanding was your own.
Let me draw it out so that you can understand better:
----
OXYGEN RICH SEA COMPLETE WITH LIFE (I hope you know this exists)
----
BLAZING MAGMA & LAVA ("FIRE UNDER THE SEA")
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Submarine/intro/
----
NITROGEN RICH SEA COMPLETE WITH LIFE ("SEA UNDER THE FIRE")
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-03a.html
----
Perhaps, I can draw a diagram and put it on the site so that this
misunderstanding does not occur again.
Denis, honestly I think you're trying too hard to argue points ad
nauseum. In this instance you are arguing something that simply CAN NOT
be argued any further. Its quite simple:
1) The Prophet (peace be upon him) narrated: "There is a fire under the
sea and a sea under the fire".
2) To substantiate that statement, it has already been proven beyond any
shred of doubt that there is lava and magma under the sea and under the
magma and lava is a sea flowing through basalt.
3) To DISPROVE the validity of this Hadîth you are forced to prove that
the aforementioned FACTS are in some way inconclusive or in some way not
factual.
Until you do #3, any further argumentation is futile and truly
desperate.
Regards,
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.NET
http://www.nessia.org
Shibli Zaman
> Earlier in this thread I believe you called to witness the whole Adam
> was 90 feet tall polemic (which I'm certain is a hoax), and now you're
That wasn't br. Hajj Gibril, but someone else. Regardless, regarding
that issue please read below (I posted this in 2000, and am now posting
it again):
The pertinent parts of this Hadīth are:
"khalaq-Allāhū Aadam wa-Tūluhū sittūna thirā`(an).."
"Allāh created Adam and his height was 60 cubits.."
This is talking about the height of Adam and humans in *Paradise* and
not in the world. This is adduced from the following portion of the
Hadīth:
"..fa kullu ma[n]-yadkhul al-jannatī `alā Sūratī Aadama fa-lam yazal
al-khalqū yanquSū Hatta-l Aan."
"So everyone who enters Paradise (will be) upon the likeness of Adam,
for they have not ceased from being decreased in stature even until
now."
When Adam fell from grace he was given a worldly decrease in stature
which mankind is still upon to this day. Thus, this Hadīth states that
when humans enter Paradise again they return to that heavenly tall
stature.
To avoid any further confusion read the very next Hadīth:
Narrated Abu Hurayrah: The Messenger of Allāh said, "The first group of
people who will enter Paradise will resemble the moon in the night of
its fullness...All of them will be upon a single semblance, upon the
resemblance of their father Adam, 60 cubits (tall) in the sky."
[SaHīH al-Bukhārī 4:544]
As we can all see now the reference to "60 cubits tall" is in reference
to ALL mankind when they are in Paradise. Also, anyone can read Ibn
Hajar's exegesis to SaHīH al-Bukhārī to see that this is how the Muslims
interpreted this Hadīth from the beginning as he places this subject in
the context of "Bāb Siffat al-Jannah" ("The Chapter of the
Characteristics in Paradise").
Omar
Assalamu alaikum Jeremiah and Omar,
JM,
> > This would seem to contradict the Qur'an's own self-description of
> > being a book of parables
OM,
> You will have to say what you mean by "parable": what the Quran says
> about itself using the word "mithal" can be adequately translated
> using words other than "parable", so I'm not sure where you get this
> "self-description" of the Quran.
"Self-description" is a fundamental principle in hermeneutics and it
is mentioned by most of the classical exegetes. One of the most
frequently cited in this regard is Ibn Kathir who said that the best
explanation of the Quran was the Quran itself, /tafsir al-Quran
bil-Quran/.
> In that sense of "parable" in English according to which a parable is
> a fictional story presented for its symbolism, I doubt there are meant
> to be any parables at all in the Quran:
Many Quran translators have used the word "parable" to translate
/mithal - amthaal/. I'm not sure which translator was the first to do
this, but they all build upon one another, and this usage seems to
come from the New Testament and the traditions it attributes to Jesus.
The English meaning of parable is not directly relevant to this
discussion. What we would like to establish is the meaning of mithal /
amthaal, and the best place to go for this is to the Quran itself.
The Quran establishes a great many terms not heard before. Every word
exists within concentric and radiating circles of meaning. We first
see it within the context of a phrase or utterance, then within a
paragraph, then within an entire work. When we deal with human prose
or poetry we might also look a word's use in sn author's other extant
works; beyond that, we may examine its use within the immediate
community to which he belonged. Beyond this, to the country in which
it was written, to the age, and so on.
While this method can be successfully applied to hadith and athar, to
fiqh and fatawa, and our other literature, it cannot easily be applied
to the Quran which must, necessarily, define itself.
Nevertheless, exegetes have attempted this with the Quran, frequently
citing poetry to demonstrate the meaning of this or that term - and
with limited success. This does place words in a wider context but we
cannot contain the Quran by poetry.
> nothing there is meant to be
> fictional, although it may well also have a symbolic meaning in
> addition to the plain literal meaning.
This is a dogmatic issue that cannot be ascertained with absolute
certainty from the text itself. I think it is also a tangential aspect
of this discussion.
Jeremiah is focusing upon the tendency of some muslims to ignore all
but the literal meaning of the text. They then risk reading it as a
book of history, or science, or law. It seems to me that the risks
inherent in this type of misreading are substantially greater than
those inherent in the reading of someone who believes that the
accounts related in it might not be totally historical nor factual.
Such a person may still easily have grasped the deeper intended
meaning and profited by its guidance.
> The Sufis, like Ibn Arabi, love
> this sort of thing, but do not deny the plain literal meaning.
I see little point in denying a literal meaning except to assess some
doctrine or dogma that depends upon the literal truth of the Quran's
textual accounts. I suppose people who deny the plain literal meaning,
as you say, may have such a motive.
> What it says is that Allah "coins similitudes" for men.
/li-nnaas/ humanity.
> Aned something which is clear in meaning is read literally unless
> there are compelling reasons to think otherwise, whether these are
> from the context, or from known laws of Arabic usage, or anything
> else.
No. There are layers of meaning and a purely literal interpretation is
often two-dimensional. Those who seek out deeper layers of meaning do
not usually deny that superficial layers exist. Rather it is the
literalists who deny all possibility of meaning beyond their own
understanding, and this is where the danger lies.
Assalamu alaikum,
Omar
Denis Giron
Just for reference, this discussion is revolving around the following
article by Shibli Zaman:
http://shibli.zaman.net/artgen.aspx?id=8
> Let me quote from Shibli's site here
>
> ''Therefore, you have 8,500 feet of ocean, under it fiery lava, 1,000
> feet beneath that you have a subterranean ocean. So...
>
> "Under the sea is a fire, and under the fire is a sea.."
I understand that this is what Shibli has written. My objection has
been to the second conjunct of the proposition that Shibli has noted
in Sunan Abu Da'ood. So I was attacking a very specific portion of the
article (id est, a single premise leading to the conclusion), and that
was the claim that we have proof now of a sea "under the fire".
> Shibli relies on the figures given in the two articles to argue that
> there is a "fire under the sea": the "sea" is found at a lower level
> than is the "fire".
Let me try to elucidate my position here, since (I think) Omar
believes that my argument misses what Shibli is bringing to the table
due to a possible misunderstanding on my part. First, Shibli
demonstrates the existence of a "fire under the sea" (as per the
relevant hadith) by pointing to volcanoes under the ocean floor, by
pointing to this article:
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Submarine/intro/
As I noted earlier, this is not the position I am arguing against.
Shibli did not really have to even call such a site to witness, as in
the 21st century it is only a very misinformed person who would
dispute such things (I learned about underwater volcanoes and "pillow
rock" when I was in elementary school). So I deliberately avoided this
portion, and went to issue of a "sea under the fire". It is here that
I claim Shibli has not presented evidence for such.
> This, Shibli's defense of a "sea under the fire" does not depend only
> on the one article that Denis quoted, but also on the other article:
> the data from both these articles combined yield Shibli's intended
> conclusion.
Omar has made a sleight mistake. The two articles combined indeed
yield Shibli's conclusion that there is a fire under the sea and a sea
under the fire, but the first article does NOT contribute to the claim
that there is "a sea under the fire". The only thing Shibli calls to
witness for that conjunct is the following article:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-03a.html
And my original comments on this were that this does not demonstrate
the existence of "a sea under the fire," rather it demonstrates the
existence of water flowing through fractures in rock.
> So I maintain Denis has still not dealt with Shibli's argument (no
> doubt he will get to it), and that the evidence for there being a "sea
> under the fire" is prima facie strong.
Prima facie is a good way of putting it, since Shibli's article did
seem to demonstrate the truth of the hadith at first glance. My
argument is that upon further reflection, one of the conjuncts from
the proposition that Shibli has pulled from the Sunan Abu Da'ood has
not been proven true. Thus my argument is that while Shibli has set
out to prove the relevant hadith true, he has not actually proven such
on the grounds that the evidence he used to corroborate the second
conjunct does not actually support his position (and again, this does
not mean the hadith is not true).
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message news:<clmnavg2admblrk7n...@4ax.com>...
>
><snip>
>
>> I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand either of the English
>> words (parable and similitude) or how they are used.
>
>No need to apologise, because you apparently don't have such a good
>grasp on these concepts yourself, if you don't mind me saying so.
That may be.
>You said that the Quran is a "book of parables", by its own
>"self-description".
>
>Well, what is that "self-description"? Can you quote the verse in
>question? The only verse I can think of is one which says "God strikes
>similitudes (mithal) for men".
2:26 is, to my underestanding the self-description.
>"The Quran consists primarily of parables that are not meant to be
>read literally."
>
>If THIS is what you take the Quranic verse to mean, then I can see why
>you think this contradicts the principle I quoted:
Yes. Exactly. Though then you are going to get into trouble regarding
"literally" when applied to parables. A parable doesn't necessarily
discount a literal reading.
> in fact the word
>"mithal" means "similitude" or "example" more generally, and does not
>necessarily indicate "parable" in any sense that requires a parable is
>not meant to be read literally.
I thought I spelled out rather well the meaning of similitude and
parable. Did you read the full post?
>One of the sense of parable you cite is this one
>
>> "...A fictious narrative or allegory (usually something that might
>> naturally occur), by which moral or spiritual relations are typically
>> figured or set forth...."
>
>In this sense of "parable", what makes you think the verse in question
>is saying that Allah strikes parables for men?
Its what the whole Qur'an is! A whole collection of stories about
moral and spiritual relations!
>You yourself indicated
>that a "non-fiction story can be used as a parable"; thus, ACCORDING
>TO YOU, the fact that Allah uses parables in the Quran does not imply
>that these parables are not also literally true,
That's right.
To be more precise, what I said-- twice-- is that it is irrelevant to
a proper reading.
Unfortunately.. you cut out an additional description in the
definition-- "usually something that might naturally occur". That part
is kind of important. For instance, Jesus tells the parable of a sheep
in a pit on the Sabbath. Is it literally true? Well.... sheep DO fall
into pits on the Sabbath on occasion! Its irrelevant to the point of
telling the story.
The Qur'an tells of a wicked ruler enslaving people called Pharoah. Is
it literally true? Well! there ARE wicked rulers who enslave people--
though with a variety of names. Does it matter in the slightest
whether these stories are "literally" true
history-what-really-happened? Nope. It doesn't even matter if a
"Pharoah" type of ruler never existed.... even though they did.
> and hence they could
>well be intended to be read as literally true
I don't think that intention is expressed in the Qur'an, though the
intention to use parables is.
>> A pretty good description of the Qur'an which tells us stories-- and
>> even tells us it is going to tell us stories-- to describe the nature
>> of The Transcendent and our relationship with The Transcendent.
>
> But the stories are to be taken literally unless there is compelling
>reason to think otherwise.
Why? What difference does that make to what the story means for us
today and for the moral/spiritual principles put forth?
> This includes, say, the story of Solomon
>speaking to birds. Do you take this to be literally true, or not.
Completely irrelevant to the purpose of the story. Maybe he did, maybe
he didn't. It doesn't matter in the slightest to the meaning or truths
put forth by the story. What difference would it possibly make in your
real life if he did literally talk to birds? None! That is not the
point of telling the story....
Incidentally, I talk to birds all the time. And they talk back. ;-)
>> If you want to take anything literally THAT is the statement/ayat to
>> take literally because it is a foundational ayat that instructs you
>> how to read the rest of the book.... ignore it, and chances are you
>> will misread everything else to come.
>
>Taken literally, the ayat does not contradict what Muslims have known
>all along: that the Quran is to be understood literally
You are into semantical problems with "literally"....
However, if that is what Muslims have known a long time then Muslims
have been engaged in a massive projection onto the text that seems to
have solidified into a dogma for some.... not the best move.
>unless there
>is some compelling reason to think otherwise.
Y'mean like an ayat from the Qur'an that says God uses parables?
>
>I had written
>
>> >This merely
>> >implies that among the ways in which Allah communicates, He "coins
>> >similitudes": it does not mean or imply that this is the predominant
>> >way in which he communicates.
>
>And Jeremiah replied
>
>> Yes it does, at least as far as the Qur'anic communication goes.
>
>Balderdash.
<laughing>
What other way of communication does He use in the Qur'an? It
certainly isn't multimedia!
The Qur'an is primarily similitudes, wouldn't you say? When you read
them you are to reflect them back on your own life, as it actually is
lived-- there will be similarities. What else is in the Qur'an?
>>Or
>> perhaps it might be more accurate to say it is *completely irrelevant*
>> to a proper reading of the similitude.
>
>Rubbish.
NOT rubbish!
To say rubbish means you don't know what a similitude actually is.
Or, you are just being completely and unreasonably stubborn in holding
onto your "principle" of Qur'anic hermeneutics.
My guess is, the later.
> It will vary with the similitude and the intentions of the
>author of the similitude.
That is rubbish. You don't understand what a parable is.
If I'm going to tell you a story to teach you Lesson X I may tell you
a true story, a fantasy story, a true story with creative
enhancements-- it simply doesn't matter as long as you learn Lesson X
from the story.
Whether or not the story is literally true or not doesn't matter. What
matters is the lesson. What matters is that you know you are being
told a parable, that a similitude is in play so you don't miss the
lesson and thus how the story is relevant for your life as it is
actually lived.
Now... if you don't know I'm telling a parable, then you might get
confused.
> If I want to tell my son of the consequence
>of his using drugs, I may well cite him analogous cases of what
>happened to those who used drugs before him.
That is not really the same as a similitude or parable nor even an
analogy-- more of just a straight comparison.
Now, if you told your son a story about a gnat, or an elephant, or a
story of someone with a weight problem (rather than a drug problem)--
and from that he derived lessons about drug use-- then you would have
used a similitude and told a parable to him and drawn analogies.
Two different ways of teaching something....
Now... think... what if your son didn't know the story you told of a
gnat was intended to teach something about drug use?
Well! Your son might then think you were talking about just gnats, not
the danger of drug use! He may even post on soc.insects.gnats what his
dad told him about gnats. Perhaps you told a story of a talking gnat--
and not knowing it was a parable your son went online to say that
gnats can talk....
So too.... the Qur'an is not talking about embryology or history or
whatever.... its not talking about gnats, its talking about The
Transcendent Mystery.
>. They definitely serves as
>parables for my son.
No it did not. Certainly not in an everyday use of the word "parable".
>The literal understanding of the stories of the Prophets is certainly
>not
>"completely irrelevant" to a proper reading of them.
Sure it is.
>that is why anyone who disputes the virgin birth has left the faith,
What you mean is: "dispute ONE WAY OF UNDERSTANDING" the meaning and
significance of the virgin birth.
For me, the possibility of meaning is much more wide open.... the
possiblity of The Creative, The Imaginative.....
>>You don't want to
>> take that one verse literally, but make it mean something else!
>
>On the contrary, I am taking it utterly literally. I am refusing to
>read into it anything more than what it says: Alah uses similitudes,
>or parables, or analogies, or examples.
Thank you.
The meaning or lesson of a parable or similitude is completely
independent of the story being fact, fiction or some combination of
both. The lesson is the point of the story, not whether fact or
fiction is being used. It simply doesn't matter. Unless, of course,
you don't realize you are reading parables, similitudes, analogies and
examples.....
>None of this contadicts the
>standard commonsense ruke of interpretation laid down by the ulema: a
>passage of the Quran is meant to be read literally unless there are
>compelling reasons otherwise.
Oh, yes..... <ahem!>.... "the ulema".
You'll excuse me if I take a pass on that one. Their track record
doesn't seem all that terrific lately.
>> And... similitude and parable are pretty much the same thing, if you
>> didn't pick up on that yet.
>
>LOL! You mean they're only "pretty much" the same thing? Could it be
>that there are varying senses in which these words are used?
I believe I raised the issue of defining words, and the move from
everyday use of the words to more specialized uses.
Were you laughing so hard you missed that part?
>I can't be bothered to go through the rest of your post.
Mmm. Yes. I'm sure.
You *might* want to try actually studying how language works
someday....
God knows best
GF Haddad
>No wonder the general Qur'anic traditions are such a mess
>theologically, socially, and psychologically.....
This is called projection.....
Qur'an to Jeremiah McAuliffe seems a marvelously malleable piece of
rosy "Transcendence." He will unleash other ten-dollar expressions
("epistimilogy") for 10-cent ideas to gloss over the sad fact that,
well, it doesn't mean much in the end because it can mean so many
contradictory things. Pin it down and you've lost it. It is all
poetic, you see. Literature. Tawheedian tropes and all. Way above the
heads of the Umma but for Me and Myself here. Add the two-bit critical
theory jargon which he claimed was now law for every Muslim researcher.
To take the Qur'an literally is to "propogate". He seems in the throes
of an existential crisis: "The question is: express truth about *what*
exactly?" Nothing, my poor fellow, absolutely nothing. We're just
making it all up because we're all such a mess.
Hajj Gibril
hajj abujamal
This is accurate and responsive and not in the least abusive, it accurately
describes Jeremiah's pop psychology approach to the religion. It's an exercise
in vanity, of course, since it will have NO effect of remedy for Jeremiah.
GF Haddad wrote:
> Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote ...
> This is called projection.....
was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahul-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>Many Quran translators have used the word "parable" to translate
>/mithal - amthaal/.
<snip>
> and this usage seems to
>come from the New Testament and the traditions it attributes to Jesus.
Does anyone know the earliest discussions/tafsir of the key words?
GF Haddad
hajj abujamal <mus...@muslimamerica.net> wrote in message news:<3EB2AD69...@muslimamerica.net>...
> This is accurate and responsive and not in the least abusive[...] It's an exercise
> in vanity, of course, since it will have NO effect of remedy for Jeremiah.
I accept and confess to the charge of vanity. I do not exempt my acts
of it. I also wish to touch on a few matters opened up by to Hajj Abu
Jamal's post which I happen to know made it to SRI by mistake.
I was truly shocked and saddened by Jeremiah's wholesale dismissal of
the Qur'anic traditions "theologically, socially, and psychologically"
because he left nothing out, seemingly out of malice, to suggest - no,
explicitly assert - that the Muslim men and women who gave up food and
sleep, slaved and toiled over the foundational sciences and hardly
even owned their daily bread for His sake were by and large inadequate
failures, and to suggest - yes, suggest by way of logical conclusion -
that Allah Most High had failed miserably since He has put the
intellectual steerage of the Umma of His Prophet in such incapable
hands for 1,400 years.
An incredibly insensible, unthinking statement and an incredibly
arrogant statement. Has my Brother Dr. McAuliffe of Jihad and Haqq
fame so much as taken a *single* course or read a *single* book in any
of the Islamic sciences? Why would he want to leave this world and
enter the grave equipped with such hurtful, self-destructive scoffing?
Yet he places so much stock in, say, the 19-th century Judaic science
of psychoanalysis or the euqally self-involved, self-doubting,
nihilistic, barely-out-of-the-egg science of critical theory, both
rife with suicidal practicioners and plenty of very real examples of
human theological, social, and psychological failures. So then, what
on earth is the mirror that he claims to hold up for the Qur'anic
traditions, what on earth is the grounding for his scoffing?? Then (in
another thread) he asks for someone's Tafsir of a word, someone with
background in those very Traditions he has just pilloried! Is this
theologically valid?
What does it help to add that in purely Shari`a terms, Hajj Abu Jamal,
the scoffing at the Shari`a, or at the Ulema as a whole, is classed
apostasy for the very horrible logical reason I mentioned above? It
was spoken in our virtual midst and we must care because we assume
that a Muslim Brother is here because of some desire for
self-improvement and self-perfectibility. This is why a Muslim - in
vain, not in vain, anyone - MUST say something in the best way
possible, although it is a hateful thing to even bring it up ("kufr")
but what led to this is even more hateful...
And I do hope and pray that it will have some effect, not for our
sakes, but for His sake Subhan wa Ta`ala.
Vanitas vanitatum!
Was-Salam
Hajj Gibril
Jeremiah McAuliffe
team! Vince McMahon himself couldn't have dreamt of that one!
Welcome back AbuJamal. Or.... are you still given special access to
sri-admin and have thus never really left?
Am I to believe that none of these posts were considered "personally
abusive" by the mods, but indeed relevant to Islam?
The topic of these posts is a *person*.... not Islam. And a personal
attack the likes of which I don't think I've ever seen on this forum,
and I've been a regular participant for at least ten years.
These posts don't even respond to what I have posted here. There are
no quotes-and-response like a normal usenet discussion thread. There
is no response to anything posted here. It is simple attack. Plain and
simple personal attack.
Be that as it may.....
Whenever either of you (or anyone here) are ready, (or should I say up
to the task?) of responding substantively and directly to anything
I've actually written-- within context-- I will applaud and welcome
it.
Certainly, and with Allah Most High as The Witness neither of you--
Abu Jamal and Gibril Hadad-- "Hajjis"-- have ever done so to date.
And that is over a period of years.
What are my themes? Simple. And consistent. 1) The state of local
communities. 2) Theologies that do not take into account recent
advances in general theology which is intimately related to 3) The
ignoring of recent discoveries of various possible sunnat Allah....
various patterns in creation and ourselves, or possible "laws of
nature"... that have a direct relevance to religion and our
understanding of the Qur'an and Sunnah.
Simple. And yet so oddly and consistently avoided by certain types.
Perhaps you might want to begin with reading, say, my dissertation--
it did earn me the US highest academic recognition-- that has to count
for *something* I should think-- and actually, finally, for the very
first time, discuss the issues, proposals and directions and analysis
put forth. If you find a flaw in them put it forth! If you know other
things that, when considered, alter them put it forth!
You've never paid attention to my serious writing Well, gosh, you
don't even actually pay attention to my posts here. The content and
substance is rarely ever actually addressed. However, you might
actually learn something. (I know that might be difficult for you to
even imagine. )
In fact, I know you will-- because I have *extensive* written
documentation to prove that people from high school through to
university faculty have learned valuable thing from it. I stress:
written, documented, extensive evidence and proof. How do you know you
won't too unless you try? Oh well... maybe you're both just too
special. <cough>
Gibril, there is a ten-year old bibliography there too. Perhaps you
would like to begin with a critique of those now incomplete resources?
Obviously, I've read *something* of the material. And I've *always*
acknowledged the areas I don't and can not know. You might want to try
that too-- its actually very liberating.
There is also the earlier mss "Metaxis". Its longer, but perhaps
easier for you to understand? Try it!
But this.... what you have done.... says nothing about me, only about
yourselves.... it was so pathetic, so off-base, so irrelevant to the
things I actually write, think, and feel that I'm not even pissed off.
I feel sorry for you both. I really do.
And I strongly question the mods who let it through.
God will tell us what we've really done in life. And about our
disputes. And God knows best.....
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Haddad) wrote:
>An incredibly insensible, unthinking statement and an incredibly
>arrogant statement.
But of course, none of what you have said is what I've said. It is
what you have assumed I may mean-- though even then a stretch.
It is a complete and total misportrayal without even any actual quoted
evidence to back it up.
Pronounced without first even questioning me regarding what I may mean
or intend in this or that post, and in spite of my posting history and
consistent themes.
Certainly, you have never shown any *personal* concern. No. You have
repeatedly and egregiously dismissed me over and over again Gibril in
a most dehumanizing and objectifying and vilifying manner, both
privately and publicly, though most excoriating in private, as I've
told you before. You keep doing it. But, I must say, this one tops
anything previous. Congratulations.
I raise issues to you. They are genuine and real questions and issues.
They are shared by others. They are mainstream. They are important.
You dismiss with outrageous ad hominems. Repeatedly. You do it to
others as well who might question you.
And now again you do so without even the basic-- much less Qur'anic--
courtesy of asking for clarification when something I said caused you
to wonder if-- not wonder, assume-- I was now, suddenly, engaged in a
wholesale dismissal of, well frankly, history, and large swaths of
humanity, rather than making statements regarding contemporary thought
and practice-- which has been my theme for years and the context of
the post. Is it the first time you've ever read any of my posts?
Eh.... could be... given your lack of substantive response in the
past.
Frankly, I am appalled by this Gibril. Absolutely appalled.
In the Name of Allah, The God, The Truth, The Most High, how *dare*
you attribute malice to me? How *dare* you impugn a life obviously
centered on and focused upon God and Truth to at least *some* degree?
God knows where I will end up, but, there is *some* real authenticity
here up to this point. It is given witness by decades' worth of word,
image and sound... and those are objective and those are long-term and
those cannot be denied. And every single bit of it is intended towards
God and Truth. They are proof of time and focus spent..... tell me how
many other people display so much, and in such a wide variety of media
and forms of expression?
Do you see me self-promoting? Do I have a book contract? A marketing
agent? Articles in popular magazines? Am I fighting and competing for
a recording contract? Am I on a speaking tour? Am I an "expert"? Do I
do the conference circuit? Do I meet with big, important people? Do I
even know any? No. No. No. No. NO. No. And NO.
I post on sri. That is nothing. I am a little person.
And yet.... I'm way more productive than most people..... and its all
got a very clear and obvious focus. I wonder why... it ain't the
money. It ain't the fame. It ain't the acclaim. It ain't the love--
'cause I ain't got none of those things. It must be something else...
Find someone else who can and does the equivalent amount of stuff--
say, at least twenty years' worth of objective material-- all
obviously with a focus on God.... and who doesn't live off of it....
at all, but just keeps doing it. And then come back and perceive me as
you have put forth here.
Go Gibril-- listen to every single song that is available (there are
more) and pay attention to the lyrics. Print out every single graphic
available (there are more, of course-- I've taken so many overtly
religious ones down), and read the actual words I've written as text
(there is a lot more of that than what is available). Read about the
dying lady's journal. Read the Metaxis mss. Look at the handouts I
used for talks. And then, if that's not enough, perhaps you can talk
to people who have known me for decades. And then come back and tell
me and everyone else what I do, and who and what I am, as you have
here.
So.... try and figure it out.
And let's see some adab in action, for a change. C'mon... you're the
Sufi, the Haji, the Scholar, the Naqshabandi. I'm just some out of
control guitar playin' loud-mouthed obnoxious American
gawd-knows-what. Right?
(Uh, am I allowed to insult myself?) <laughing>
But God forgive me for what is going through my head and heart towards
you right now. Seriously.
And God forgive you.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 2 May 2003 03:22:41 +0000 (UTC), om...@email.is (Omar) wrote:
>
> >Many Quran translators have used the word "parable" to translate
> >/mithal - amthaal/.
>
> <snip>
>
> > and this usage seems to
> >come from the New Testament and the traditions it attributes to Jesus.
>
>
> Does anyone know the earliest discussions/tafsir of the key words?
>
>
I thought I would inject myself into this discussion very briefly:
The actual verse in question is made DIRECTLY IN THE CONTEXT of the
rewards of Paradise. Thus, a basic contextual analysis could do us
all wonders as to what is meant by these 'examples, and similitudes'.
The prior verse refers to the concept of the rewards in Paradise. In
this verse God Almighty refers to the awe and wonder of the people who
would upon seeing the fruits of Paradise, and the remarks of God
Almighty. "Indeed this is what we were bestowed with earlier -
although what they shall be given [now] would only [apparently]
resemble that [which they were previously]."
given] - ..." (Summarized from Moiz Amjad's translation of the Quran)
that is being conveyed is that the tastes of the fruits of Paradise
will consistently change and never remain static and unoriginal.
The following verse, the verse in question, refers to how God gives
these parables so that men of understanding could take heed. Further,
the Quran expounds on how the disbelievers would mock these parables
because they could not rise above their own worldy outlook to conceive
of a reality beyond their own experiences. That is why God says that
He guides whomever He wills by them, and leads atsray whomever He
wills.
Thus, what is abundantly clear is that the parables referred to are
those verses that speak about the realities that man has not yet
experienced, among them the bounties of Paradise and the punishment of
Hellfire. It is only by giving examples from this life does God
Almighty in His infinite Mercy expound to us the realities of the next
life. But in no way do such concepts contradict the intellect, but in
fact the intellect confirms them.
That is why immediately following this verse, God Almighty then raises
the rhetorical question about his infinite power. "O man, how can you
possibly deny [the power] of God..." It then refers to how man was
originally created out of nothing, and creating him a second time, in
a world that man does not yet know, is no problem for Him, glorified
be He.
Ultimately, the mutashabbihat verses refer to these aspects that man
has not yet experienced in this life. "Over it are 19". The Quran
says that 19 angels are the keepers of Hell, and it then illustrates
how the disbelievers mocked such an assertion. There comments were
akin to "Look at this man ... He claims that Hell can crush anything
and everything, and yet only 19 angels guard it. We can take 19
angels ourselves." Yet God responds with, "None knows the hosts of
the Lord except He." For the believer, he can only shudder in fear at
the might of God, who could create such powerful angels that only 19
are used to tend to the Hell fire.
Thus, as the Quran itself says, there are two types of verses:
1. The mutashabbihat
2. The muhkamat
The latter refers to the laws of the shareeah, which are spelled out
clearly in the Quran. The former refers to those aspects of the ghayb
that man has not yet seen or experienced. This is the sum and
substance of religion as a whole and it strikes directly at the
materialistic view of the world that conceives of everything in terms
of what man has experienced as the total reality. "They only know the
life of this world." Any deep thinking person who has not shut out
his moral conscience would realize that God, and the Hereafter are not
impossible and in fact are a necessity in this world. We all look
forward to much greater manifestations of God's creative will.
"The paper is finished, the pen is finished, and we are finished,
But, the fable of desire, is still not finished."
"Do not think that the task of the tavern is finished,
A thousand untasted wines lie hidden in the vein of grapes."
be...@muslimamerica.net
Jeremiah McAuliffe wrote:
Quite a bit, though I was just looking for the translation of the verse
that contains the phrase "book of parables."
Could you help me find it?
was-salaam,
bedr
GF Haddad
>No wonder the general Qur'anic traditions are such a mess
>theologically, socially, and psychologically.....
Do you mean to say that those Qur'anic traditions were a
mess in the very generation of the Prophet Muhammad, upon
him peace? If not, then the next generation, that of his
Companions? If not, then when? WHEN exactly did these
traditions suddenly become what you are claiming?
Can you share with the rest of this forum the evidence on
which you base your assertion? A book, perhaps? Or is it
your ten-year experience in the mosques of your country
that somehow led you to this conclusion bearing on the entire
intellectual tradition of Islam? Or it just a feeling on
your part you were venting? Something undefinable? Unimportant
(since you seem not to follow up on it, although you make a
great deal of your perceived lack of response by others)?
Do you consider yourself now liberated from those traditions
and able to extract your own rulings and understanding of
the Religion from its sources? Or are you still beholden
to them in some obscure, also undefinable way despite
your own statement? Would you like to rephrase it?
Hajj Gibril
Denis Giron
> > Earlier in this thread I believe you called to witness the whole Adam
> > was 90 feet tall polemic (which I'm certain is a hoax), and now you're
>
> That wasn't br. Hajj Gibril, but someone else.
Shibli goes on to argue that the reference to Adam being 90 feet tall
has to do with his size in paradise, and that all men may be of that
size when they are in paradise, and I am not interested in disputing
such. What I was referring to was a very specific polemic which claims
that scientists have proven that the first man was 90 feet tall; see
for example:
http://www.al-jazeerah.net/adam_90_feet_tall.htm
So, I was criticizing Hajj Gibril (GF Haddad) for calling to witness
such a polemic, which he did (though not in this thread, as I wrongly
assumed) back on April 10th:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c0734f73.0304082355.68d0bae3%40posting.google.com
Now, Mr. Haddad was careful enough to predicate his stance on this
polemic on whether or not the relevant web site could be trusted, but
my point was to criticize his tendency to cite that which he finds on
the net that is favorable towards Islam. The site which carries the
polemic (http://www.al-jazeerah.net, Answering Christianity, et
cetera) belongs to Osama Abdallaah, who is not exactly known for his
tendency to actually research or confirm the claims found in in his
articles, thus one might be justified in having a sort of a priori
suspicion about this. My only point in the snippet above was to point
out and criticize a certain tendency.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message news:<rq05bv8mrt0cf85ta...@4ax.com>...
>> Does anyone know the earliest discussions/tafsir of the key words?
>The actual verse in question is made DIRECTLY IN THE CONTEXT of the
>rewards of Paradise.
Yeah. Asad brings that out in his note, but doesn't really say much
else.
>Thus, what is abundantly clear is that the parables referred to are
>those verses that speak about the realities that man has not yet
>experienced, among them the bounties of Paradise and the punishment of
>Hellfire.
Among many, many, other things. For instance, when God tells a
historical story it is "things you did not know"...
>Ultimately, the mutashabbihat verses refer to these aspects that man
>has not yet experienced in this life. "Over it are 19". The Quran
>says that 19 angels are the keepers of Hell, and it then illustrates
>how the disbelievers mocked such an assertion.
See... that's a type of ayat I would take as primarily literal-- i.e.
not a parable or similitude, though I guess it could be. Of what
though I wouldn't have a clue!
>Thus, as the Quran itself says, there are two types of verses:
>
>1. The mutashabbihat
>2. The muhkamat
>
>The latter refers to the laws of the shareeah, which are spelled out
>clearly in the Quran.
That seems very little of the Qur'an.
> The former refers to those aspects of the ghayb
>that man has not yet seen or experienced.
Now THAT is the meat!
But I think I'd go further.... while say, 19 angels is completely
unseen, experiences such as history, proper social relations (law) and
even ourselves are mostly-- at least partially-- unseen as well, and
in the same way as 19 angels are ghayb.... i.e. God knows us better
than ourselves and so, for instance, tells us we are made weak.
Certainly, God knows "what really happened" in the past, while we do
not.
In one way isn't *everything* in the Qur'an mutashabbihat to some
degree? i.e. even the muhkamat? Sort of like: not all mutashabbihat
are muhkamat, but all muhkamat are also mutashabbihat? For instance, I
think one of the clearest literal statements is don't eat pork. But
the whole "why?" of it smacks of ghayb. (especially in contemporary
times when we can rationalize it away with "pigs were dirty back then"
as many have done with the OT prohibitions...)
> We all look
>forward to much greater manifestations of God's creative will.
Yeeees. Infinite Imaginative Awesomely Unique Creativity.
There's only one thing to say to that: subhan Allah about a million
times....
>"Do not think that the task of the tavern is finished,
>A thousand untasted wines lie hidden in the vein of grapes."
Good one.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>Salaam!
Salaams!
>
>Jeremiah McAuliffe wrote:
>
>Quite a bit,
<laughing>
> though I was just looking for the translation of the verse
>that contains the phrase "book of parables."
>
>Could you help me find it?
It doesn't say "book of parables". Its Chapter 2, verse 26. It is
talking about how God communicates...
Here is the Asad translation:
"Behold, God does not disdain to propound a parable of a gnat, or of
something even less than that. Now, as for those who have attained to
faith, they know that it is the truth from their Sustainer-- whereas
those who are bent on denying the truth say, "What could God mean by
this parable?" In this way does He cause many a one to go astray, just
as He guides many to a one aright...
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Haddad) wrote:
>Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message news:<clmnavg2admblrk7n...@4ax.com>...
>
>>No wonder the general Qur'anic traditions are such a mess
>>theologically, socially, and psychologically.....
Didn't you already respond to this? And didn't I respond back?
>Do you mean to say that those Qur'anic traditions were a
>mess in the very generation of the Prophet Muhammad, upon
>him peace? If not, then the next generation, that of his
>Companions? If not, then when? WHEN exactly did these
>traditions suddenly become what you are claiming?
I think it was January 21, 1483 CE about 3:45 pm.
Since your questions seem so rhetorical, I thought I'd put in a dose
of sarcastic humor. You don't mind, do you?
There is no exact "when".... its a process over centuries that began
with Muhammad's death. You would know better than I about the hadith
that elude to the gradual removal of people of authentic, healthy
religious knowledge. Or are those hadith less authentic-- and relevant
to us today-- than ones expressing ancient folk-medicine about fly
wings?
Certainly, a key historical moment would seem to be the so-called
"closing" of ijtihad among the Sunni Muslims.
>Can you share with the rest of this forum the evidence on
>which you base your assertion? A book, perhaps?
The hadith and observation.
>Or is it
>your ten-year experience in the mosques of your country
>that somehow led you to this conclusion bearing on the entire
>intellectual tradition of Islam?
Once again-- the misportrayal. Is it willful on your part Gibril?
I have never said, indicated nor even implied anything negative or
dismissive of the entire intellectual tradition of Islam.
What I have been saying pertains-- again-- pay attention for a change
please-- to general contemporary thought and practice, and
specifically, the influence of Wahabiesque thought. I have been
completely consistent and clear and explicit on that point for years.
But yes.... experience and observation for ten years of mosques in my
country and of posts on the internet, what others write to me, and of
the news, and of Muslim organizations, and literacy rates in so-called
Muslim countries, today's leaders and authorities, representatives of
various Muslim groups, etc.
>(since you seem not to follow up on it, although you make a
>great deal of your perceived lack of response by others)?
Again... such a spin.
YOUR lack of appropriate response is fact. Not mere individual
perception. You continue it with this post.
As I said-- obviously again you didn't pay attention-- I do get
response from others who validate what I have written as true for them
too regarding the communities. As I said, my mailbox gets periodically
flooded.
Here is what happens when I have a captive audience for at least a few
hours:
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/mcauliffe/eval.html
I have thousands of them.
I waited for Muslims to use me. Now, I've left you and will go back to
offering the material to others as I was before. But don't worry, I'll
probably continue to mouth off here.
>Do you consider yourself now liberated from those traditions
I have stated for decades that one can ever be outside or "liberated"
from traditions or history. We exist within traditions. It is part of
being human. That is partly why I am not "Qur'an Only", as I wrote in
a short essay long ago. I think that essay is on a number of other
peoples' sites.
Now... to do or think something simply because it is a tradition, or
"that is how it has always been done" is very problematic. And in such
a situation-- what I call in more serious writing "the tyranny of
received views"-- perhaps a type of liberation would indeed be called
for. People within the Shi'a self-flagellation traditions might be
able to use a bit of liberation from tradition.
But all I ask for are relatively functional worship communities, and
up-to-date theologizing. I guess that's generally too ambitious these
days?
Denis Giron
>
Zilch. In another post in this thread, Omar Mirza beat Shibli to the
punch in exposing the erroneous nature of my assumption. I admit now
that I was wrong in assuming it was a poetic device based simply on
the rhyming nature, but it seemed reasonable at the time I wrote it.
:)
Now that the poetry issue is out of the way, we can get to the real
meat of Shibli's post, having to do with the fire under the sea and
the sea under the fire. Before I begin, it should be noted that
Shibli's original article (the subject of this portion of the
discussion) can be found here:
http://nessia.org/artgen.aspx?id=8
Furthermore, for those who wish to catch the full context of the post
I am responding to, Shibli's article has been archived by Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=F5E2768CC03B1A4DAF607BE65B4AA6C22B35C8%40host1.W3.w3gateway.com
> It is obvious, that either a) You didn't read the article at all, or b)
> You are intentionally misrepresenting my data. Knowing you, I wish to
> disregard the possibility of option "b". Nonetheless, it is not
> respectful to respond to something without even reading it properly.
> Personally, I do not appreciate this total misrepresentation my data.
This I found shocking, since it was plainly apparent that Shibli's
reaction to my commentary on his defense of the
fire-under-sea/sea-under-fire hadith was nearly identical to Omar
Mirza's response. I was left wondering if it is possible for two
different individuals to misunderstand my arguments in such a similar
way, thus I took another look at my original criticism and noticed
that my uncareful language made it seem like I was claiming that
Shibli called only one site to witness to defend both conjuncts.
That's my mistake for not being more clear with my argument. What my
actual intended argument (and it came out in subsequent discussion
with Omar) had to do with was only the conjunct regarding "a sea under
the fire," and I had no intention of dealing with the other conjunct.
So here I will restate my argument and then look foward to Shibli's
comments.
The relevant hadith speaks of a fire under the sea, and a sea under
the fire. To analyze this proposition, I break these down into two
conjuncts, and the first conjunct (fire under the sea) was defended by
Shibli with the following site:
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Submarine/intro/
This was fairly clear, and I had no intention of arguing against it.
It was the second conjunct (sea under the fire) that I wanted to touch
on, and Shibli defended that one by calling to witness the following
site:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-03a.html
My original argument was that Shibli had not adequately defended the
second conjunct. With that, I can now touch on Shibli's concluding
remarks:
> 1) The Prophet (peace be upon him) narrated: "There is a fire under the
> sea and a sea under the fire".
Correct, and this is a conjunctive proposition, thus it can only be
considered true if both conjuncts are true. Note, however, that if
Shibli fails to prove both conjuncts true, this does not mean the
relevant hadith is false. My intention is not to prove the hadith
false, but only to point out why Shibli has failed to prove it is true
(thus one is justified in taking a position of agnosticism on it).
> 2) To substantiate that statement, it has already been proven beyond any
> shred of doubt that there is lava and magma under the sea and under the
> magma and lava is a sea flowing through basalt.
This is where Shibli is wrong. Shibli claims that "it has already been
proven beyond any shred of doubt that there is lava and magma under
the sea and under the magma and lava is a sea flowing through basalt,"
when the reality is that he has not proven such. The reason his
conjunctive proposition has failed is because he has not actually
proven the second conjunct (same problem with the hadith), id est it
has not been demonstrated that "under the magma and lava is a sea[.]"
This is the key problem.
Note again that to demonstrate a "sea under the fire" (or as Shibli's
elucidation goes, that "under the magma and lava is a sea"), Shibli
called to witness the following site:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-03a.html
Read through the site carefully; nowhere does it speak of water being
under any magma/lava/fire. It talks only of water flowing through
fractured basalt. So, in no way does this site demonstrate that under
any magma is a sea; it only speaks of water flowing through cracks in
rock, and there is huge difference between the two.
> 3) To DISPROVE the validity of this Hadîth you are forced to prove that
> the aforementioned FACTS are in some way inconclusive or in some way not
> factual.
I believe I have dones something roughly analogous above. The second
conjunct ("sea under the fire") has not been demonstrated to be true,
and it is certainly not supported by the Space Daily site called to
witness. Thus I was justified in stating that Shibli has yet to prove
that this hadith is true (again, this does not mean that the hadith is
false).
-Denis Giron
Altway
"Jeremiah McAuliffe" <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message
news:6emdbvkqfanflho0f...@4ax.com...
> >Thus, as the Quran itself says, there are two types of verses:
1. The mutashabbihat
2. The muhkamat
> >The latter refers to the laws of the shareeah, which are spelled out
clearly in the Quran.
> > The former refers to those aspects of the ghayb
that man has not yet seen or experienced.
> But I think I'd go further.... while say, 19 angels is completely
> unseen, experiences such as history, proper social relations (law) and
even ourselves are mostly-- at least partially-- unseen as well, and
in the same way as 19 angels are ghayb.... i.e. God knows us better
than ourselves and so, for instance, tells us we are made weak.
Certainly, God knows "what really happened" in the past, while we do
not.
> In one way isn't *everything* in the Qur'an mutashabbihat to some
> degree? i.e. even the muhkamat? Sort of like: not all mutashabbihat
are muhkamat, but all muhkamat are also mutashabbihat?
Comment:-
Allah is One and His creation is One - that is, all things are
connected together to form a single system.
But human beings have limited consciousness.
Therefore, the world and all things in it can be divided
into two aspects -
(1) That of which we are conscious - the "Manifest".
(2) That of which we are unconscious - the "Hidden"
but it nevertheless affects us. It constitutes by far
the greater part of Reality.
These two are not separate things in Reality.
As human beings are required to develop and increase their
knowledge and awareness, it is absolutely essential that they
know of the existence of the hidden - the little circle
of human consciousness which exists in the larger circle of Reality
must expand into that greater reality.
We are made aware of the "Hidden" by means of parables.
This is because we have no experience of the "Hidden" and
cannot therefore describe it or understand a description.
The Parable or Similitude is a link between the Manifest
and Hidden, the conscious and the unconscious - a bridge
accross which we can travel, a vehicle, a method of facilitating
the expansion of consciousness.
As for the 19 angels that guard Hell:-
As this refers to Heavenly things, we could look at
the heavens for a clue.
It seems to me that it could refer to the fact that every 19 years the sun
and moon and earth are aligned in exactly the same way.
Note that the verses following the mention of 19 refer to the sun and moon.
See 74:27-38
Angels could be thought of as the powers or agents
through which God works.
The sun and moon are also psychological symbols,
The Sun for the Spirit within and the moon which shines by
a dim reflected light in the night is a symbol for the Ego.
The two refer to the Unconscious and Conscious minds.
Or rather, the Moon refers to the sub-conscious mind.
But Allah knows best.
Meditation on the verses that follow the above 74:39 to 56
will be useful.
---
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com
.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 5 May 2003 13:29:25 +0000 (UTC), asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message news:<rq05bv8mrt0cf85ta...@4ax.com>...
>
> >> Does anyone know the earliest discussions/tafsir of the key words?
>
>
> >The actual verse in question is made DIRECTLY IN THE CONTEXT of the
> >rewards of Paradise.
>
> Yeah. Asad brings that out in his note, but doesn't really say much
> else.
>
Salaam
To strip a word from its context and apply it with the same standard
all over the Quran would, in my view, lead to total error. The verse
is actually speaking about the METAPHYSICAL, and it is common
knowledge, that all language is defined by experience.
>
> >Thus, what is abundantly clear is that the parables referred to are
> >those verses that speak about the realities that man has not yet
> >experienced, among them the bounties of Paradise and the punishment of
> >Hellfire.
>
> Among many, many, other things. For instance, when God tells a
> historical story it is "things you did not know"...
>
I would not say that the historical narrations fall under the category
of "mithal". There is a wide difference between arguing that an UMMIY
Prophet could not know a 'historical reality' because of his not being
well-read in the scriptures is the same as a man, no matter his time
and place, who could never fully fathom a reality he has never
experienced, and could not experience because of the state of his
being at the present moment. Often times, when the Quran speaks about
these historical narrations, it may say "You were not there when ..."
Thus, this knowledge DOES NOT refer to metaphysical truths not yet
experienced by man, but historical truths.
Of course I would agree with you that even then, we are limited in our
experience, but that type of knowledge is not one based upon our
present constitution, i.e. the limitations according to the senses of
our physical body, but the fact that we were not there to witness the
event.
>
> >Ultimately, the mutashabbihat verses refer to these aspects that man
> >has not yet experienced in this life. "Over it are 19". The Quran
> >says that 19 angels are the keepers of Hell, and it then illustrates
> >how the disbelievers mocked such an assertion.
>
> See... that's a type of ayat I would take as primarily literal-- i.e.
> not a parable or similitude, though I guess it could be. Of what
> though I wouldn't have a clue!
>
That is if you assume the word mithal means 'parables'. The Quran
does not mean that it is a parable or similitude, but this reality of
19 angels is nothing like what a human being has experienced. How can
a human being fathom nineteen angels maintaining the fire of hell that
could roast all of humanity in a single instant? How can man conceive
of a their skin being roasted, and that skin being replaced by another
skin to be roasted once again? How can man conceive of fruits that
consistently change their tastes to more wondrous forms? Whatever man
can conceive is through imagination, but even then its imagination
falls short.
The difference between the beliver and unbeliever is that the former
recognizes and believes firmly in the possibility, while the
unbeliever does not and mocks it.
>
> >Thus, as the Quran itself says, there are two types of verses:
> >
> >1. The mutashabbihat
> >2. The muhkamat
> >
> >The latter refers to the laws of the shareeah, which are spelled out
> >clearly in the Quran.
>
> That seems very little of the Qur'an.
>
Exactly. The Quran is primarily meant to make man conscious of
certain values, and even the shareeah is meant for this purpose.
Thus, God Almighty almost always relates the purpose of his laws, so
that men may 'understand'. Thus, shareeahs have evolved over time,
from Prophet to Prophet, yet the core value system, the 'deen' as is
used in surah Shoora, has never changed. Its the famous reconciling
permanence and change.
>
> In one way isn't *everything* in the Qur'an mutashabbihat to some
> degree? i.e. even the muhkamat? Sort of like: not all mutashabbihat
> are muhkamat, but all muhkamat are also mutashabbihat? For instance, I
> think one of the clearest literal statements is don't eat pork. But
> the whole "why?" of it smacks of ghayb. (especially in contemporary
> times when we can rationalize it away with "pigs were dirty back then"
> as many have done with the OT prohibitions...)
>
The law is clearly defined not to eat the meat of pigs, and whether we
know the divine reason or not would be a separate issue altogether.
Such a reason would not fall in the category of determining what is
clear and what is mutashabbihat. In fact, the Quran wants us to
understand the values of its injunctions and without understanding the
reason, one falls into extremes or may be manipulated by the devil
through religion. "A knowledgeable person is harder on the devil than
a thousand pious worshippers." Thus, we are commanded by the very
Quran to understand what God wants from us and this is what is meant
by the Prophet (S) being sent to TEACH the kitab, i.e. laws, and the
hikmah, i.e. the intellectual, and spiritual basis behind the shareeah
for our tazkeeyah, i.e. purification and growth of the human
personality.
The Quran always gives a reason and one of the reasons it says it has
been revealed in this gradual manner of giving commands, and then
expounding on them later according to different situations, is so that
man may understand the reason behind it.
"Thus does Allah make clear His verses to you in order that you may
understand. (2-242)"
This statement is made directly after a few directives regarding
divorce. Maulana Islahi (R) points out how in these series of verses,
a direct and concise statement is made first regarding the
implementation of divorce. Taking into account the nature of the
Quranic revelation, and its being revealed over time, God Almighty
then elaborates on some different situations and this allusion "that
you may understand" points to the fact that God is teaching men how to
deliberate and use their reason to reach the underlying wisdom behind
them.
As far as the pig is concerned:
1. Religion deals with values.
2. One who believes in religion understands his limitations in
knowledge and his need for guidance. Ultimately, religion guides man
in matters that men could not have known through his intellect alone
and reminds him of the metaphysical truths that are imprinted on the
soul.
3. If point 2 is correct, than ultimately the religion does not teach
about knowledge that man can reach through such avenues as science,
where this data is "not dependent" on a higher being to teach man in
certain matters.
4. The Quran says the pig meat is unclean. This uncleanliness
obviously is morally related, according to the Quran, because its view
on prohibition of things. "O Prophets, eat of the good and clean
things ..." That is why, when the Quran refers to the 'moral
benefits' of gambling, it says the 'harm' is greater than the 'good'.
The Arabic style and choice of words, as the scholars of the language
point out, are used for moral benefits.
5. Human nature has an uncanny ability, i.e. inherent guidance, to
determine what is normally good to eat for him, though there is some
difference from culture to culture, but in some matters he falls
short. The OT itself explains that the pig has hoofs like a
herbivore, but eats meat like a carnivore. Human beings normally do
not eat beasts of prey, tigers, and the like, but they have no
problems eating herbivores, i.e. animals with hooves. The pig falls
into both categories and human intellect is at a loss in this matter,
despite his scientific knowledge and advancements in purification.
>
> > We all look
> >forward to much greater manifestations of God's creative will.
>
> Yeeees. Infinite Imaginative Awesomely Unique Creativity.
>
> There's only one thing to say to that: subhan Allah about a million
> times....
>
>
> >"Do not think that the task of the tavern is finished,
> >A thousand untasted wines lie hidden in the vein of grapes."
>
> Good one.
>
>
Muhammad Iqbal.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message news:<6emdbvkqfanflho0f...@4ax.com>...
>> On Mon, 5 May 2003 13:29:25 +0000 (UTC), asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yeah. Asad brings that out in his note, but doesn't really say much
>> else.
>>
>To strip a word from its context and apply it with the same standard
>all over the Quran would, in my view, lead to total error.
Yes. Of course. But the unseen IS the context of the whole Qur'an.
> The verse
>is actually speaking about the METAPHYSICAL,
Here would be an assumption issue.
In a tawheedian world-view there is no "metaphysical". Or, another
angle is that history IS part of the metaphysical. Once time passes it
moves into the ghayb.
>
>I would not say that the historical narrations fall under the category
>of "mithal".
Oh... see, I would, and not just history as told in the Qur'an.
History is an act of interpretation. The reality of "what really
happened" generally remains unknown. I'm kind of thinking of the
cliche how "history is written by whoever wins" and we often talk
about "the lessons of history"-- which brings us into the realm of
parable.
I'm not saying that the historical stories in the Qur'an are not "what
really happened". I'm saying we can't *know* that and in the context
of the Qur'an it is irrelevant because the Qur'an is not about
history, its about The Transcendent.
>"You were not there when ..."
>Thus, this knowledge DOES NOT refer to metaphysical truths not yet
>experienced by man, but historical truths.
Well... not totally, right after the ayat in question comes the story
of human creation. We weren't there during the debate over our
creation! And yet, that is history. And then right after come
exhortations to Israel that are certainly not parables, but
exhortations.
You have to add in relationships and principles and commands to the
metaphysical and the historical.
Regarding the historical stories.... yes. It may well be so.... but is
irrelevant to how we read the Qur'an. The primary meaning of the
stories must be relevance to our lives as actually lived. i.e. the
parable-similtude angle on the stories pointing out not just
metaphysical truths, not just history, but principles, lessons and
examples to shape how we actually live our lives and relationships.
>Of course I would agree with you that even then, we are limited in our
>experience, but that type of knowledge is not one based upon our
>present constitution, i.e. the limitations according to the senses of
>our physical body, but the fact that we were not there to witness the
>event.
That IS a limitation of the physical body and senses!
>> >Ultimately, the mutashabbihat verses refer to these aspects that man
>> >has not yet experienced in this life. "Over it are 19". The Quran
>> >says that 19 angels are the keepers of Hell, and it then illustrates
>> >how the disbelievers mocked such an assertion.
>>
>> See... that's a type of ayat I would take as primarily literal-- i.e.
>> not a parable or similitude, though I guess it could be. Of what
>> though I wouldn't have a clue!
>>
>
>That is if you assume the word mithal means 'parables'.
Well, I'm not assuming. That is how it is translated. Again, the issue
would have to do with the Arabic word and how it was used at the time
of the original audience. No one here seems to know much about that.
> The Quran
>does not mean that it is a parable or similitude, but this reality of
>19 angels is nothing like what a human being has experienced.
As I said: this would be a type of verse I'd be inclined to treat
literally. Because it is nothing like what we've experienced there
cannot really be any parable-type aspect to it.
>> >The latter refers to the laws of the shareeah, which are spelled out
>> >clearly in the Quran.
>>
>> That seems very little of the Qur'an.
>>
>
>Exactly. The Quran is primarily meant to make man conscious of
>certain values,
Welllll.... that is exactly what I'm saying!
>The law is clearly defined not to eat the meat of pigs, and whether we
>know the divine reason or not would be a separate issue altogether.
>Such a reason would not fall in the category of determining what is
>clear and what is mutashabbihat.
No. What I said is that the reason for the prohibition is part of the
unknown.... not that it helps determine it.
> In fact, the Quran wants us to
>understand the values of its injunctions and without understanding the
>reason, one falls into extremes or may be manipulated by the devil
>through religion.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of things I don't understand, but
use them.... you don't want to forget that we are also dealing with
issues like trust and faith in God.
We don't understand the reason behind the pork prohibition, but the
Qur'an itself then puts forth conditions to help us avoid extremism.
"A knowledgeable person is harder on the devil than
>a thousand pious worshippers." Thus, we are commanded by the very
>Quran to understand what God wants from us and this is what is meant
>by the Prophet (S) being sent to TEACH the kitab, i.e. laws, and the
>hikmah, i.e. the intellectual, and spiritual basis behind the shareeah
>for our tazkeeyah, i.e. purification and growth of the human
>personality.
Well, I would say we are told to search for understanding, pursue
understanding, but I would not be confident with regard to anyone
actually achieving it in these matters!
But from another angle what we need to understand is very simple, i.e.
pray, don't cheat lie or steal, be cool, be compassionate, do acts of
charity, etc.
Everyone already knows and understands what God wants from us. The
Qur'an reminds us of all that, and then tells us things we don't know
to emphasize it.
>The Quran always gives a reason
Uh, where is the reason for the pork prohibition? It doesn't always
give reasons.
and one of the reasons it says it has
>been revealed in this gradual manner of giving commands, and then
>expounding on them later according to different situations, is so that
>man may understand the reason behind it.
Well, we are confusing different types of ayat it seems.
Some reasons are given.... i.e. why does God allow war? Reasons are
given for that.
We're really into theories of knowledge, and would really need to
discuss what it means to understand something-- anything.
>
>"Thus does Allah make clear His verses to you in order that you may
>understand. (2-242)"
>
>This statement is made directly after a few directives regarding
>divorce. Maulana Islahi (R) points out how in these series of verses,
>a direct and concise statement is made first regarding the
>implementation of divorce. Taking into account the nature of the
>Quranic revelation, and its being revealed over time, God Almighty
>then elaborates on some different situations and this allusion "that
>you may understand" points to the fact that God is teaching men how to
>deliberate and use their reason to reach the underlying wisdom behind
>them.
Well, you've lost me. What has this to do with using parables?
Parables ARE used to teach truth and give understanding of various
situations, conditions, ways of acting, etc.
>As far as the pig is concerned:
>
>1. Religion deals with values.
I'd add "relationships" and "principles" to this.
I'm not really sure what the rest of this has to do with a
parable/literal dynamic.
BTW, I'm reasonably sure there are people who eat carnivores....
Jeremiah McAuliffe
(Hugh Slaman) wrote:
>Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message news:<6tndbv81nt2gvtspg...@4ax.com>...
>
><snip>
>
> <<It doesn't say "book of parables".>>
>
>ok then that's your interpretation.
No. Its the translations. They don't say that phrase. Interpretation
comes into play in the application of the passage....
>i took a course with hamza yusuf hanson and he said that verses should
>be interpreted literally unless there is some reason not to...
Four things. But remember, it depends on the type of speech-- there
are clear commands in the Qur'an that are not parables, there are
exhortations that are not parables.
1. That is a theological statement that may or may not be correct.
There is nothing in the Qur'an that verses should be interpreted
literally unless there is some reason not to.
2. The reason not to do so IS in the Qur'an, which is the statement
under discussion.
3. It comes back to the purpose or genre of the Qur'an. Is the Qur'an
a history book? Is the reason for the stories simply to tell us "what
really happened"? Or is the purpose of telling the stories something
else? I'd say something else.
4. Of what possible relevance is it to us living our everyday lives
whether the history stories are "what really happened" or not? The
relevance lies in the lessons-- i.e. reading them as parables.
God knows best.
GF Haddad
> Certainly, a key historical moment would seem to be the so-called
> "closing" of ijtihad among the Sunni Muslims.
No such thing. You are parroting a cliché without ascertaining
its meaning or currency among those it concerns most.
> >Can you share with the rest of this forum the evidence on
> >which you base your assertion? A book, perhaps?
>
> The hadith and observation.
How on earth can the hadith form evidence that "the general
Qur'anic traditions are such a mess theologically, socially,
and psychologically"? Unless you mean IGNORANCE of hadith,
which causes one confusion over the apparent contradictions?
As for "observation," it's fair to say you mean subjectivity.
This is not evidence.
> I have never said, indicated nor even implied anything negative or
> dismissive of the entire intellectual tradition of Islam.
Here again is what you said:
> >>No wonder the general Qur'anic traditions are such a mess
> >>theologically, socially, and psychologically.....
But you are here to save the day, right?
A little further down you say you've been
waiting in vain "for Muslims to use" you. You mean as a savior?
"Do you see me self-promoting?" you ask.
The gentleman doth protest too much.
> YOUR lack of appropriate response is fact. Not mere individual
> perception. You continue it with this post.
Then just ignore me and rest on the laurels you say flood your mailbox regularly.
> I waited for Muslims to use me.
{They impress on thee as a favour that they have embraced Islam.}
49:17
Now, I've left you and will go back to
> offering the material to others as I was before.
???
But don't worry, I'll
> probably continue to mouth off here.
A fair assessment - unrhetorical in the least.
> But all I ask for are relatively functional worship communities, and
> up-to-date theologizing. I guess that's generally too ambitious these
> days?
Physician, heal thyself. <cough>
Hasbuna Allah.
Hajj Gibril
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Four things. But remember, it depends on the type of speech-- there
> are clear commands in the Qur'an that are not parables, there are
> exhortations that are not parables.
>
> 1. That is a theological statement that may or may not be correct.
> There is nothing in the Qur'an that verses should be interpreted
> literally unless there is some reason not to.
This strikes root at language in general. It should read, there is
nothing in the Quran that should be intepreted figuratively UNLESS
THERE IS SOME REASON FROM THE LANGUAGE ITSELF THAT GIVES A REASON NOT
TO.
>
> 2. The reason not to do so IS in the Qur'an, which is the statement
> under discussion.
>
How can you say such, when in the very verse, God Almighty says that
the men of imaan take the lessons from it, and the lack of
understanding is attributed to the people of disbelief, who break
their covenant with God and spread corruption on the earth by severing
ties.
> 3. It comes back to the purpose or genre of the Qur'an. Is the Qur'an
> a history book? Is the reason for the stories simply to tell us "what
> really happened"? Or is the purpose of telling the stories something
> else? I'd say something else.
>
Whether the ultimate purpose of the Quran is to teach moral lessons,
has nothing to do with the literal teaching of the Quranic verses.
How can a book that is about practical conduct, give historical
lessons that are not true.
> 4. Of what possible relevance is it to us living our everyday lives
> whether the history stories are "what really happened" or not? The
> relevance lies in the lessons-- i.e. reading them as parables.
>
>
The Quran often says that one of its proof lies in the fact that
Muhamamd was in illiterate and he could have no knowledge of the
Semitic Prophets of old, yet he spoke about them in detail.
asimm...@yahoo.com
>
> >To strip a word from its context and apply it with the same standard
> >all over the Quran would, in my view, lead to total error.
>
> Yes. Of course. But the unseen IS the context of the whole Qur'an.
>
I agree that the unseen is the whole context of the Quran, and it
views the next life as a natural extension of this life. But it also
views the knowledge based upon our senses and concrete experience as
limited. Thus, whatever conception we have of God, the Day of
Judgement, Paradise, and Hell all fall short. This is essentially
what is being spoken about in the verse in question and it has nothing
to do with history. Our lack of knowledge of a certain event that has
passed is not limited by our present 'physical' constitution, but
because of the fact that we were not there.
This is a huge difference.
> In a tawheedian world-view there is no "metaphysical". Or, another
> angle is that history IS part of the metaphysical. Once time passes it
> moves into the ghayb.
>
This is not what I was referring to. It is a fact that all knowledge
is based upon concrete experience. We cannot possess that knowledge
of the unseen that the Quran refers to in this particular vesre,
because our constitution is not suited for it. That is why, in surah
Waqiah, God Almighty draws attention to the fact that He will recreate
man into forms that He does not yet know.
History does not fall into such a category because it is not a
limitation of knowledge of the type above.
> History is an act of interpretation. The reality of "what really
> happened" generally remains unknown. I'm kind of thinking of the
> cliche how "history is written by whoever wins" and we often talk
> about "the lessons of history"-- which brings us into the realm of
> parable.
It is not an interpretation by God Almighty. If we took your
argument, than anything and everything in the Quran would fall under
the 'art of intepretation' and then nothing becomes muhakamat, and
everything becomes mutashabbihat. The Quran says that there are
values in everything, "nothing is created without a purpose" and even
in the law there are values and lessons. This is the ultimate
objective of the shareeah, to reawaken these values. These values are
not what is being sppoken about when it refers to the 'mithal'.
>
I'm saying we can't *know* that and in the context
> of the Qur'an it is irrelevant because the Qur'an is not about
> history, its about The Transcendent.
>
Anything and everything in the Quran is about the Transcendent. Even
the shareeah is about the Transcendent.
>
> >Of course I would agree with you that even then, we are limited in our
> >experience, but that type of knowledge is not one based upon our
> >present constitution, i.e. the limitations according to the senses of
> >our physical body, but the fact that we were not there to witness the
> >event.
>
> That IS a limitation of the physical body and senses!
>
This is not what I meant. My example is akin to a human being
witnessing an atom through his eyes. Whether 1000 years ago, or today
,his naked eyes never have the power to view an atom. It is
impossible. If I take a time machine (if they exist) and travel back
to a certain moment, my physical constitution allows me to witness
this event.
> >>
> >
> >That is if you assume the word mithal means 'parables'.
>
> Well, I'm not assuming. That is how it is translated. Again, the issue
> would have to do with the Arabic word and how it was used at the time
> of the original audience. No one here seems to know much about that.
>
That is why I referred to the context as a means of understanding the
intent. There is nothing in the context of the ayah to assume that it
means 'parables' and that it can be used in every verse. I want to
know how you can use this verse as a means to interpret the history in
the Quran, when the context has NOTHING to do with history but of
knowledge we cannot experience because of our present physical
constitution.
>
> No. What I said is that the reason for the prohibition is part of the
> unknown.... not that it helps determine it.
>
The Quran reveals the reason for its laws, and this is referred to
'hikmah'. This has nothing to do with the unseen.
>
> > In fact, the Quran wants us to
> >understand the values of its injunctions and without understanding the
> >reason, one falls into extremes or may be manipulated by the devil
> >through religion.
>
> Not necessarily. There are plenty of things I don't understand, but
> use them.... you don't want to forget that we are also dealing with
> issues like trust and faith in God.
There are plenty of things you do not understand, but this does not
mean that the laws or purposes of the shareeah are not meant to be
understood or they cannot be understood. Your misunderstandings has
nothing to do with the Quran explaining things 'clearly' so that 'men
may understand'.
The Quran also teaches us the same lesson of trust in God you are
speaking about, and it also teaches us how to deal with it. This is
why the verse in surah Baqarah, regarding "Call upon Me", is made
directly in the context of the issue of having sexual intercourse
during Ramadan. Many of the Comapnions, as related by the Quran, felt
in their conscience that it was wrong, but God Almighty never revealed
anything concerning it. Even with the prick of conscience, they fell
into it and God remarked about their lack of failure in following
their moral conscience.
Thus, the Quran preambles this story with the verse about praying to
God, and following what one believes until the truth becomes clearer,
i.e. revelation is sent down concerning the matter.
The point I am making is that this has nothing to do with the verse
about 'mithal', but deals with the muhkamat, and part of the muhkamat
is the underlying reason, i.e. the 'hikmah' behind them.
>
> We don't understand the reason behind the pork prohibition, but the
> Qur'an itself then puts forth conditions to help us avoid extremism.
>
No, the Quran says it is unclean and the Quran says that we can eat
all that is halaal and tayyib. The halal refers to those things that
the shareeah specifies about, including the cleansing of the animal of
blood or its tazkiyah and the tayyib refers to those things that human
nature tells man what is good.
And the Quran also says that the mission of the Prophets is tazkiyah
or purification.
>
> But from another angle what we need to understand is very simple, i.e.
> pray, don't cheat lie or steal, be cool, be compassionate, do acts of
> charity, etc.
>
Yes, but the laws of the shareeah are meant to preserve the values.
Take the example of talaq:
God Almighty has specified that if one desires to divorce his wife, he
is suppose to make a pronouncement of talaq, following by a long
period of time. The divorce ends after 3 talaqs are made. The Quran
further gives injunctions about dealing with the wife kindly, and
providing her with all the normal means she has been living with. It
also refers to what happens if sexual intercourse happens during such
a period how it affects the pronouncment of the talaq. It further
draws attention to the mehr and how one is to deal with it.
All of these things in the context of the Quran ensure us that the
Quran takes every means to preserve the bond of marriage and noble
treatment is what is enjoined. This is essentially what the law is
about, to preserve the values.
It is not enough to say "Well, pray and do moral acts of charity" and
assume the law or tradition is unimportant. This is a strike at the
'tawheedian world-view' and inclines to a dualistic world-view.
>
> >The Quran always gives a reason
>
> Uh, where is the reason for the pork prohibition? It doesn't always
> give reasons.
>
It is unclean and whatever the Quran forbids is in reference to
tazkiyah or purification and cultivation of men. Its reason is not
scientific.
>
> Well, you've lost me. What has this to do with using parables?
> Parables ARE used to teach truth and give understanding of various
> situations, conditions, ways of acting, etc.
>
The mithal has nothing to do with history. History teaches values and
Shareeah teaches values. They both teach us on how we are to conduct
ourselves.
The verse has nothing to do with intepretive gymnastics.
>
> BTW, I'm reasonably sure there are people who eat carnivores....
>
1. The semitic religions do not and most human beings do not..
2. There are human beings that eat the flesh of other human beings.
It is a 'deviation' of nature. Of course there are variances in what
is 'tayyib' among various cultures, and that is more so a product of
the environment. That is why, if you look at any book on tafsir, you
will see a range of opinions by the great fuqahah on what constitutes
tayyib. The point is that human beings do not eat carnivores, except
for a small section. Most Chinese eat anything and everything,
primarily because they faced enormous famines that killed millions of
people in their history.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Is this post relevant to Islam?
Is it insulting and abusive?
How did it get posted?
Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Is it insulting and abusive?
How did it get posted?
Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Is it insulting and abusive?
How did it get posted?
Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Haddad) wrote:
>
>> But all I ask for are relatively functional worship communities, and
>> up-to-date theologizing. I guess that's generally too ambitious these
>> days?
>
>Physician, heal thyself. <cough>
Funny, I thought that was what the Hajji Sufi Scholar Naqshabandi was
for. Not these days..... they are as gone as the Wahabis, and
infected with the same disorder, it would seem.
(Can't you come up with some original form of sarcasm? You hate me
Gibby, why would you imitate me?)
Jeremiah McAuliffe
(Hugh Slaman) wrote:
>Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message news:<qs1ibvo6cs7r5hr6t...@4ax.com>...
>
>i know that...and "book of parables" is ur interpretation of the
>text...so it can be questioned like any other interpretation....not
>meaning to be rude to u of course...
Not rude. I get you. You are absolutely correct. Well, pretty much...
I wouldn't say it is a book of only parables, so it would be a "book
with some parables". There are also commands, descriptions of what God
likes or doesn't like, prayers, etc.
>>there
>> are clear commands in the Qur'an that are not parables, there are
>> exhortations that are not parables.
>
>and stories that are meant to be taken literally....
Based on theological approaches in the past, not necessarily something
self-descriptive in the Qur'an. Whether those theolgical approaches
are best for us today is questionable.
>> 1. That is a theological statement that may or may not be correct.
>
>nahhhhh....it is just common sense... if u assert something i will not
>think "oh my god that must be a parable for the decay of communism",
Unless I tell you I use parables!
>no i will take you at face value..... unless i see some reason not
>to....i do that with everything i hear and it works...why not do the
>same with the quran....
Well, I don't know. Gosh. Could it be the ayat under discussion? ;-)
>> There is nothing in the Qur'an that verses should be interpreted
>> literally unless there is some reason not to.
>
>the quran tells u to use your intellect...and shaykh hamza's rule
Right.... SHAYKH HAMZA'S rule. Not something from the Qur'an.
I'd dispute whether it is common sense. It is a cliche to say that
common sense is anything but common!
Again, the issue is relevance.....
>..so what's wrong with shaykh hamza's principle, seeing as i
>use it all the time...
Ah... well.... maybe there is something better for you to use?
>>i must be missing something...it all seemed so clear to me and then i
>read ur posts :-)...thanx
<laughing>
Perhaps you are seeing some new possibilities!
>
>> 2. The reason not to do so IS in the Qur'an, which is the statement
>> under discussion.
>
>that's exactly what im questioning...how exactly does the statement
>under discussion give you a "reason not to do so".....
<sigh> Because it is a description and it is not balanced or countered
by another type of description.
Plus, the big issue is simply relevance to people in their actual
lived lives.... whether or not it "really happened" doesn't make any
difference. It is the lessons that make the difference.
>look, the quran says "god does not disdain to give the parable of a
>gnat..."...
>
>NOW WHERE DO U GO FROM THERE?
Yes! That is exactly where the issue lies.... the beginning of the
heremeneutic process!
First, we would explore the rest of the text. Form a conclusion. Then
what others say about it. Refine conclusion. Then look at our
underlying assumptions and presuppositions that we brought to the
text. Refine conclusions. Look at other related topics. Refine again.
Start all over again. :-)
We're doing that right now.
>(caps for emphasis...im not screaming at u!)
'Tis a good question, seems to me.
Really, the first step is too look at the presuppositions we bring to
it.... those are often unreflected upon... then begin our
explorations.
>
>> 3. It comes back to the purpose or genre of the Qur'an.
>
>to teach u about god....
Yes. And about ourselves, and creation, and the relationships among
all of it.....
>Is the Qur'an
>> a history book?
>
>to the same extent that it's a "book of parables"....
Maybe. Barring some major archeological treasure trove.... we don't
know.
>Is the reason for the stories simply to tell us "what
>> really happened"?
>
>not SIMPLY...thats part of it.....
Maybe. However, it is irrelevant to my life. The parable aspect is not
irrelevant to my life.
> Or is the purpose of telling the stories something
>> else?
>
>the purpose of telling the stories is to teach u about god by telling
>u what god really did in the past...
Does it matter to the teaching about God whether or not the story is
"what really happened"? Nope.
>and to teach u how god fearing men
>behave by telling u what they really did in the past....
Does it make the slightest difference to your learning how God-fearing
people behave if the stories are "what really happened" or not? Nope.
>I'd say something else.
>
>> 4. Of what possible relevance is it to us living our everyday lives
>> whether the history stories are "what really happened" or not?
>
>tons of relevance...tons and tons....here is a short example posted a
>while back
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=generous+appears+avenger+group:soc.religion.islam&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=soc.religion.islam&selm=7uogea%243sj%241%40samba.rahul.net&rnum=1
I do not see the relevance here, its not about literal vs parable,
unless you mean this, where again God tells us He uses parables to
teach the lessons:
"To each of them We coined parables..."
>The
>> relevance lies in the lessons-- i.e. reading them as parables.
>
>god doesn't need to give us mere parables...
You are not the first here to say "mere".
Parables are NEVER "mere"-- they are used to express profound truths.
Y'see....to say "mere parables" is to display an
assumption/presupposition about parables that simply isn't quite
correct.... that then effects openness to possibility and meaning....
This is a relatively common, though incorrect assumption often
produced by an education that is strong in the natural sciences, but
weak in the arts and human sciences.
>god knows what really
>happened,
Yes.
> and he tells us because that is how we get our lessons...not
>from fiction but from concrete examples of what god really did with
>his servants...
Fiction can sometimes express Truth better than non-fiction.
Indeed, art probably does it best of all....
But if you have no training in how to read fiction or how to
experience art you won't know that.
John Berg
Islam" except to point out that phrase is used to avoid dealing with a
subject difficult for Islam. The discussion seems ambivalent: If the
sunnah and hadith are accepted as tradition, then I agree. If they are
considered "revelation" in the same sense as the Qur'an then my research
suggests that Muslims are divided. Certainly from a third party vantage,
the idea of continuous or continual messages from Allah would weaken the
entirety of Islam. As it is the lateness of the first documented canonical
Qur'an is quite late and subsequent to most hadith. All the sunnah and
hadith ought not be consider valid any earlier than the earliest extant
document as a necessary but not sufficient proof of authenticity.
Certainly I've come to the conclusion that the certain Muslim sects hold so
tenaciously to the sunnah and hadith is because certain of them are
essential for sect's tenets and would not stand with just the reveal Qur'an.
Thus these are preserved to foist political aims on a faith.
John Berg
"Jeremiah McAuliffe" <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message
news:k35nbvs8m1qqa5p0s...@4ax.com...
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>Our lack of knowledge of a certain event that has
>passed is not limited by our present 'physical' constitution, but
>because of the fact that we were not there.
>
>This is a huge difference.
I guess I'd not agree with that for a couple of reasons.
"Not-there" as an ontological-existential state of being is the same
for both situations.
To separate out and stress the physical aspect to our experience of
reality is, it seems to me, more Cartesian-mechanistic than
Tawheedian-wholistic.
>> In a tawheedian world-view there is no "metaphysical". Or, another
>> angle is that history IS part of the metaphysical. Once time passes it
>> moves into the ghayb.
>>
>
>This is not what I was referring to. It is a fact that all knowledge
>is based upon concrete experience.
I might have problems with that statement. ;-)
> We cannot possess that knowledge
>of the unseen that the Quran refers to in this particular vesre,
>because our constitution is not suited for it. That is why, in surah
>Waqiah, God Almighty draws attention to the fact that He will recreate
>man into forms that He does not yet know.
>History does not fall into such a category because it is not a
>limitation of knowledge of the type above.
Well, I think I get more of what you are saying, but I'm not sure such
distinctions are really meaningful. I mean, to "know" the past entails
being "another form"-- just as does, say, knowing the 19 angel
guardians.
>> History is an act of interpretation. The reality of "what really
>> happened" generally remains unknown. I'm kind of thinking of the
>> cliche how "history is written by whoever wins" and we often talk
>> about "the lessons of history"-- which brings us into the realm of
>> parable.
>
>It is not an interpretation by God Almighty. If we took your
>argument, than anything and everything in the Quran would fall under
>the 'art of intepretation' and then nothing becomes muhakamat, and
>everything becomes mutashabbihat.
Oh no no no no no!
Not "the Qur'an" in and of itself. Rather, our human encounter with
the Qur'an.... that is, only the human encounter. The Qur'an
transcends itself, but for the human who actually reads the Qur'an,
yes... everything falls under the art of interpretation.
My assumption is that we are homo hermeneuticus-- everything,
constantly, no exceptions, the whole of human experience IS the art of
interpretation.
Allah Most High will tell us what we really did and what really
happened and so on.
And as said, the Qur'an is not *just* parables.
> I'm saying we can't *know* that and in the context
>> of the Qur'an it is irrelevant because the Qur'an is not about
>> history, its about The Transcendent.
>>
>
>Anything and everything in the Quran is about the Transcendent. Even
>the shareeah is about the Transcendent.
Right. So, let's not make it about something else!
This whole thread comes from the issue of taking descriptions of fetal
growth and interpreting them in such a way as to see them as magically
predicting contemporary understandings of fetal development. That is,
a "scientific" hermeneutic of the Qur'an and hadith. I don't think
such passages support such interpretations, nor does reason, nor is
such an approach relevant for peoples' actual lives.
With regard to actual Shari'ah issues this topic would have relevance,
it seems to me, with regard to legalism and reduction of Qur'anic
practice and understanding down to jurisprudence.... i.e. seeing it as
only or primarily a book of law, rather than The Transcendent.
>> That IS a limitation of the physical body and senses!
>>
>
>This is not what I meant. My example is akin to a human being
>witnessing an atom through his eyes. Whether 1000 years ago, or today
>,his naked eyes never have the power to view an atom. It is
>impossible. If I take a time machine (if they exist) and travel back
>to a certain moment, my physical constitution allows me to witness
>this event.
Yeah, I think I get what you mean, but addressed it above.
>> Well, I'm not assuming. That is how it is translated. Again, the issue
>> would have to do with the Arabic word and how it was used at the time
>> of the original audience. No one here seems to know much about that.
>>
>
>That is why I referred to the context as a means of understanding the
>intent. There is nothing in the context of the ayah to assume that it
>means 'parables' and that it can be used in every verse. I want to
>know how you can use this verse as a means to interpret the history in
>the Quran,
Because I don't understand the Qur'an as a history book. That's an
assumption/presupposition.
Because I see each verse in the context of the whole text-- not just
what comes directly before or after a particular verse. Especially
this one, which seems a foundational type of statement to me. (And it
is repeated in other places that God uses parables to communicate....
among other things of course.)
Because I am NOT interpreting the history in the Qur'an. It may be
what really happened, it may not be. I'm saying the question is
irrelevant.
>when the context has NOTHING to do with history but of
>knowledge we cannot experience because of our present physical
>constitution.
Again, for me, the context is the text as a whole. And actually, the
context is large than that... the text, what people say about the
text, personal experience, related issues, etc.
>> No. What I said is that the reason for the prohibition is part of the
>> unknown.... not that it helps determine it.
>>
>
>The Quran reveals the reason for its laws, and this is referred to
>'hikmah'. This has nothing to do with the unseen.
Uh, what is the reason for the pork prohibition?
>There are plenty of things you do not understand, but this does not
>mean that the laws or purposes of the shareeah are not meant to be
>understood or they cannot be understood. Your misunderstandings has
>nothing to do with the Quran explaining things 'clearly' so that 'men
>may understand'.
I guess that explains why Muslims in the Qur'anic traditions seem to
kill and hate each other with some regularity?
Some things are clear, others are not....
>> We don't understand the reason behind the pork prohibition, but the
>> Qur'an itself then puts forth conditions to help us avoid extremism.
>>
>
>No, the Quran says it is unclean
That is not an actual reason for us today.
What is meant by "unclean". The common, easy-to-understand, clear
answer is something with dirt or disease. But pork is safe to eat
today.... you fall into the possiblity of rationalizations.
> The halal refers to those things that
>the shareeah specifies about, including the cleansing of the animal of
>blood or its tazkiyah and the tayyib refers to those things that human
>nature tells man what is good.
Not human nature!
There are people that practically live off the blood of their animals!
The Scots make blood pudding.
Clear and understandable reasons are not given here.... it is simple
command.
>It is not enough to say "Well, pray and do moral acts of charity" and
>assume the law or tradition is unimportant.
Agree. Of course.
>> >The Quran always gives a reason
>>
>> Uh, where is the reason for the pork prohibition? It doesn't always
>> give reasons.
>>
>
>It is unclean and whatever the Quran forbids is in reference to
>tazkiyah or purification and cultivation of men. Its reason is not
>scientific.
Ok, well... that's part of the whole issue! "Unclean" is undefined. It
is simple command without a reason given that is clear to contemporary
people.
>> BTW, I'm reasonably sure there are people who eat carnivores....
>>
>
>1. The semitic religions do not and most human beings do not..
Well, I don't know of any law in Christianity that prohibits it.
What most people do or do not eat doesn't tell us much of anything
other than their resources.
>
>2. There are human beings that eat the flesh of other human beings.
>It is a 'deviation' of nature.
That opens up a whole other can of assumptions and presuppositions....
Some peoples' have engaged in cannabilism as a form of religous
ritual...
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>
>This strikes root at language in general. It should read, there is
>nothing in the Quran that should be intepreted figuratively UNLESS
>THERE IS SOME REASON FROM THE LANGUAGE ITSELF THAT GIVES A REASON NOT
>TO.
Completely disagree.
First of all, the Qur'an doesn't say this. It DOES say God uses
parables-- and signs and patterns in creation.... and some other
things.... to communicate.
Secondly, when we pick up a book, before we even look at its language,
we generally know if we are going to read fiction, non-fiction,
science-fiction, poetry, biography, instruction manual, historical
fiction, or Scripture. If you make a mistake regarding genre, you've
already made a big mistake.
Scripture is about The Transcendent
Eventually, you always do get to striking at the roots of language.
That is where the action is....
>
>> 2. The reason not to do so IS in the Qur'an, which is the statement
>> under discussion.
>>
>
>How can you say such, when in the very verse, God Almighty says that
>the men of imaan take the lessons from it,
>and the lack of
>understanding is attributed to the people of disbelief, who break
>their covenant with God and spread corruption on the earth by severing
>ties.
Confusing genre expresses a major lack of understanding and leads to
more.
>> 3. It comes back to the purpose or genre of the Qur'an. Is the Qur'an
>> a history book? Is the reason for the stories simply to tell us "what
>> really happened"? Or is the purpose of telling the stories something
>> else? I'd say something else.
>>
>
>Whether the ultimate purpose of the Quran is to teach moral lessons,
"Whether"?
I didn't know that was in doubt or question.
Guess I was wrong.
So what would you say is the ultimate purpose of the Qur'an?
>has nothing to do with the literal teaching of the Quranic verses.
>How can a book that is about practical conduct, give historical
>lessons that are not true.
<sigh>
You don't understand what a parable is.....
Or don't *want* to understand. Its not really that difficult.
Perhaps if you could give your understanding that would help. I gave
the dictionary word, and it is how the ayat are translated....
Jeremiah McAuliffe
<john...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>There is no defense against the accusation that a message is "abusive to
>Islam"
<laughing>
Well, I was talking about being abusive towards me personally.
>except to point out that phrase is used to avoid dealing with a
>subject difficult for Islam.
That is true.
>. If they are
>considered "revelation" in the same sense as the Qur'an then my research
>suggests that Muslims are divided.
I don't know if anyone would actually say that, but in effect some do
that.
It is the same as "there is no priesthood" yet, there is a de facto
clerical caste.
> Certainly from a third party vantage,
>the idea of continuous or continual messages from Allah would weaken the
>entirety of Islam.
Well, I don't know. In one sense there is a continuous message from
God-- signs and patterns in creation.
Some say creation itself is revelation-- it IS the Qur'an in a
different form. Strictly speaking, the Qur'an is not necessary.
>All the sunnah and
>hadith ought not be consider valid any earlier than the earliest extant
>document as a necessary but not sufficient proof of authenticity.
Well, we don't know that.... this is the issue.
To what extent are the hadith telling us history, and to what extent
are they telling us what people at the time of compilation thought was
history?
>
>Certainly I've come to the conclusion that the certain Muslim sects hold so
>tenaciously to the sunnah and hadith is because certain of them are
>essential for sect's tenets and would not stand with just the reveal Qur'an.
Yes, correct. They also don't stand when taking other approaches to
the hadith.
One thing though, Sunnah and hadith are not actually the same thing.
But they are pretty much the first step when interpreting the Qur'an.
>Thus these are preserved to foist political aims on a faith.
Only for the politically-oriented groups.
Shibli Zaman
news:<bdfe7cc1.03050...@posting.google.com>...
> such. What I was referring to was a very specific polemic which claims
> that scientists have proven that the first man was 90 feet tall; see
> for example:
>
> http://www.al-jazeerah.net/adam_90_feet_tall.htm
>
> So, I was criticizing Hajj Gibril (GF Haddad) for calling to witness
> such a polemic, which he did (though not in this thread, as I wrongly
> assumed) back on April 10th:
Denis, I'm sorry for the oversight. I read the link from
"Answering-Christianity" and then researched its references a bit and
came up empty handed. Based upon the complete absence of any supporting
material to back this up, my personal conclusion is that it is nonsense.
In all my reading I have never read about a "Pre-nutrition Age" in the
history of human evolution. Is there such a thing even?
I also want to make clear that in my previous response to Denis, that my
censure and protest of certain elements of his response should in no way
be interpreted as me believing his credibility is in any way in
question. In spite of his fundamentally opposing views from my own, the
man's credibility is stellar and I firmly believe in his sincerity in
his search for knowledge.
I pray for Divine Guidance in his enviable quest for knowledge...
Regards,
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.NET
GF Haddad
> On Wed, 7 May 2003 16:07:49 +0000 (UTC), Qas...@ziplip.com (GF
> Haddad) wrote:
> >
> >Physician, heal thyself. <cough>
> Funny, I thought that was what the Hajji Sufi Scholar Naqshabandi was
> for. Not these days..... they are as gone as the Wahabis, and
> infected with the same disorder, it would seem.
>
> (Can't you come up with some original form of sarcasm? You hate me
> Gibby, why would you imitate me?)
Sad - I thought that a Western lay convert was supposed to learn, catch
up, listen rather than talk. Not these days.... they are as gone as the
Islamophobes and infected with the same disorder, it seems.
(Can't you resist focussing on sarcasm? Do you think there is nothing
more than putdown in what a critic says to you?)
I am in awe that you discourse on Qur'an and yet confess you know
NOTHING of the elementary constituents of Tafsir, namely language and
its arts.... Subhan Allah.
Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad
Qas...@ziplip.com
asimm...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 9 May 2003 12:11:39 +0000 (UTC), asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Our lack of knowledge of a certain event that has
> >passed is not limited by our present 'physical' constitution, but
> >because of the fact that we were not there.
> >
>
> To separate out and stress the physical aspect to our experience of
> reality is, it seems to me, more Cartesian-mechanistic than
> Tawheedian-wholistic.
>
All knowledge is based upon concrete experience, and whether we like
it or not, our conceptions of those higher realities will always have
a touch of 'anthromorphism'. We cannot escape illustrating these
realities in language that is subject to our experience now. I don't
believe that is stressing out the physical aspect, but being 'real'.
We will see 'our deeds' in the next life, and they will take on forms
we cannot really comprehend until we get there.
>
> Not "the Qur'an" in and of itself. Rather, our human encounter with
> the Qur'an.... that is, only the human encounter. The Qur'an
> transcends itself, but for the human who actually reads the Qur'an,
> yes... everything falls under the art of interpretation.
>
The Quran is a book of guidance from God Almighty, and evolves, but it
does not mean that man cannot understand what is intended by the
verse. The Quran says it was revealed in clear Arabic so one can
'understand', and language is meant to express truth, otherwise it
defeats the very purpose of language.
> My assumption is that we are homo hermeneuticus-- everything,
> constantly, no exceptions, the whole of human experience IS the art of
> interpretation.
>
But the very purpose of guidance is so that man does not fall away
from properly experiencing life. It is meant to distinguish between
what is true and what is false.
> Allah Most High will tell us what we really did and what really
> happened and so on.
>
Allah has also told us what to do and what not to do.
>
That is,
> a "scientific" hermeneutic of the Qur'an and hadith. I don't think
> such passages support such interpretations, nor does reason, nor is
> such an approach relevant for peoples' actual lives.
>
I agree with you on this point Jeremiah, and I spoke only in reference
to the verse regarding parables. One can easily determine what is
intended by the verses on the development of the human being because
the statements are priamrily made in the context of the resurrection
of man, and the denial by some to disbelieve in such a fact. God has
created man in stages, and we have nothing to do with our
'development', than how is it we deny the power of God to raise man a
second time.
The Quran ITSELF DEFINES how it is to be understood. The main point I
was making is that the context itself indicates what is intended by
the verse about 'mithal'. It is preceded by the description of the
bounties of Paradise, and it is followed by a statement on the power
of God who created everything out of nothing. Thus human beings
should have no problem in believing that God can reward or punish in
manners that we have never fathomed, and the verses about them should
be taken as a basis of how we should conduct our lives.
> With regard to actual Shari'ah issues this topic would have relevance,
> it seems to me, with regard to legalism and reduction of Qur'anic
> practice and understanding down to jurisprudence.... i.e. seeing it as
> only or primarily a book of law, rather than The Transcendent.
>
The point I was making is that values are taught in law, history, and
parables. The verse about the 'mithal' is not speaking about parables
in 'history' but about metaphysical truths. The context of the Quran
negates such an intewpretation as does the whole book itself. The
Quran itself says that the Prophet has been sent to teach the law and
the wisdom behind it. Thus, the POINT of the law is part of the
comprehensive teaching of this deen.
> >
> >That is why I referred to the context as a means of understanding the
> >intent. There is nothing in the context of the ayah to assume that it
> >means 'parables' and that it can be used in every verse. I want to
> >know how you can use this verse as a means to interpret the history in
> >the Quran,
>
> Because I don't understand the Qur'an as a history book. That's an
> assumption/presupposition.
>
But that does not mean the Quran does not relate history as a fact. A
historical truth teaches just as much as a parable. And the Quran
itself argues one of the proofs for its truth is that Muhammad (S)
could have no knowledge of historical facts that were only known to an
elect few, 'the learned among the Bani israel'.
> Because I see each verse in the context of the whole text-- not just
> what comes directly before or after a particular verse.
First, you are isolating the verse but not understanding it as part of
the whole.
Second, the context is the first manner in which to understand the
verse. The Quran says it is speech and a Book. Thus, verses are not
suppose to be isolated from their context and chapter for that matter,
let alone the whole nature of the book, as Fazlur Rahman pointed out.
The Quran also says its verese explain each other.
Third, the verse is directed primarily at the Bani Israel and their
uses any means to promote disbelief in the Prophet (S). Thus, the
whole surah prrimarily revolves around the rejection of the Prophet by
Bani Israel, based upon their racial pride. Thus God alludes to their
rejection like the rejection of Satan, "You created me of fire, and
him of clay." The Bani Israel argued "You created us from Bani israel
and him from Bani Ishmael." They failed to realize that yes, they are
an unlettered people, yet God praises this unlettred person in Surah
Jumuaah and "he grants his bounty to whomsoever he wills". God likens
the LETTERED mong the Bani Israel as "Asses with books on their
backs'. They failed to realize that their knowledge was useless and
God's bounty of correcting a people was bestowed upon an 'unlettered
man'.
Fourth, the Quran argues that their rejection is in actuality
disbelief, and their arguments of "What does God mean by these
parables" are not real questions but sarcastic.
This udnerstanding is is corraborated by the whole text. There is a
reality beyond what human beings have experienced, and the rejection
of the disbelievers is because "they only see the things of this
life'. They only can understand the playthings of this world and they
consistently mock the 'truth' of a life where deeds will manifest
themselves and the 'sight will be sharp'. And man will understand
that the time he tarried was 'as like a day'. "When we will change
the seven heavens and earth and replace them with another seven
heavens and earth'.
> >when the context has NOTHING to do with history but of
> >knowledge we cannot experience because of our present physical
> >constitution.
>
> Again, for me, the context is the text as a whole. And actually, the
> context is large than that... the text, what people say about the
> text, personal experience, related issues, etc.
>
And who is saying it is not? You constantly say its about the whole,
yet you have not even defined how you take mithal to understand
certain verses. I want you to give me a concrete example from the
Quran itself where you can take this evrse and apply it to the text.
>
> >> No. What I said is that the reason for the prohibition is part of the
> >> unknown.... not that it helps determine it.
> >>
> >
> >The Quran reveals the reason for its laws, and this is referred to
> >'hikmah'. This has nothing to do with the unseen.
>
> Uh, what is the reason for the pork prohibition?
>
It is unclean, and affects our moral well-being. The Quran has been
sent for tazkiyah which is the purification of man's moral and
physical well-being. Why si the blood drained from an animal that is
slaughtered? The whole process of cleansing the animal is to refine
the human being and express gratitude.
The food we eat affects us morally, and psychologically. Jeffery
Dahmer ate teh flesh of his victims and drank their blood. Such acts
are known to affect how people act and they often sti,mulate the
animalistic passions.
Your misunderstandings has
> >nothing to do with the Quran explaining things 'clearly' so that 'men
> >may understand'.
>
> I guess that explains why Muslims in the Qur'anic traditions seem to
> kill and hate each other with some regularity?
And your point is? Muslims are like all human beings. They do not
approach the Quran with the intent to pursue the truth, and they do
not desire to follow the truth.
This si irrelvant to man's ability to udnerstand what the truth is
when he has found it and act by it.
>
> Some things are clear, others are not....
>
And the fact that we cannot eat pork is clear. It is not a mithal.
>
> >> We don't understand the reason behind the pork prohibition, but the
> >> Qur'an itself then puts forth conditions to help us avoid extremism.
> >>
> >
> >No, the Quran says it is unclean
>
> That is not an actual reason for us today.
>
It is the actual reason for us today. Uncleanliness in the Quran
refers to BOTH physical uncleanliness and moral uncleanliness. Thus
the Quran defines what is meant, and one's (not you I am referring to
in general) hermeneutics can be thrown away quite easily if one wants
to use the Quran as the furqan.
The Arabic word, as I pointed out, refers not to any scientific
reason. That is why in the Quran, when some people asked why their
was a prohibition for drinking and gambling, because the Arabs use to
get drunk and gamble away their money to the poor, answered that "yes,
there are some moral benefits, but these moral benefit is far
outweighed by the hurt it can cause to one's own individual
well-being". And the Arabic scholars point out that the word choice
is one of a moral nature.
Human beings do not need revelation to tell them that fire burns.
They already know this. Scientific advancement is part of human life
and whether a person believes in God or not, he can uncover scientific
realities. Gudiance provides us knowledge in which our intellect may
falter or intellect cannot reach by its own self alone and it deals
with those things that affect our values.
> What is meant by "unclean". The common, easy-to-understand, clear
> answer is something with dirt or disease. But pork is safe to eat
> today.... you fall into the possiblity of rationalizations.
>
The Quran has defined uncleanliness and nowhere does it refer to
scientific truths. The whole mission of the Prophet, and this is
related in the dua of Ibraheem in Baqarah, and is further restated in
surah Jumuah is for tazkiyah or purification and development of man so
that he may attain eternal success in the next life, at the same time,
enjoying this life in due measure.
> > The halal refers to those things that
> >the shareeah specifies about, including the cleansing of the animal of
> >blood or its tazkiyah and the tayyib refers to those things that human
> >nature tells man what is good.
>
> Not human nature!
>
Their are deviations in human nature as I have alluded to.
> There are people that practically live off the blood of their animals!
> The Scots make blood pudding.
>
And it is a deviation that the Quran has rectified.
> Clear and understandable reasons are not given here.... it is simple
> command.
>
The Quran says it is unclean and it affects us. Thus, the term
tazkiyah or the purification of the animal. And if the Scots want to
know the truth, then they would understand that there drinking of
blood is part of a deviation that God, in his infinite mercy, has
corrected.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> First of all, the Qur'an doesn't say this. It DOES say God uses
> parables-- and signs and patterns in creation.... and some other
> things.... to communicate.
>
The Quran says that it was revealed in clear Arabic so that men may
understand. We are talking about understanding the BOOK itself.
Thus, when the Quran refers to how the phenomenon of rain brinsg life
to the dead earth in the context of ressurection, the point becomes
rather obvious.
>
> Scripture is about The Transcendent
>
Yes, and God has spoken to man so that He may understand and God
speaks the best.
> Eventually, you always do get to striking at the roots of language.
> That is where the action is....
>
That is not where the action is, but that is often where people get
confused. People come up with thousands of different meanings from a
verse, simply because they delved into a root of a word discovering
some word that originated out of the same root that is totally
unrelated to the context. The root may often help in understanding
some of the basic nuances, but no, the action is not there ...
>
> Confusing genre expresses a major lack of understanding and leads to
> more.
>
Of course it does. I don't disagree with you at all. My point was
lessons are taught from history and they are taught from parables,
irrespective of the genre. One can intepret literally and still
understand the lesson. The issue is how does one deteremine the
genre.
One determines the genre from the Quran. Where is the verse placed,
is it used in the context of rhetoric? Who is being addressed? What
is the topic of convesation in which the surah revolves? What does
the Arabic usage of a certain phrase during the Prophet's time mean.
>
> So what would you say is the ultimate purpose of the Qur'an?
>
It's in the Quran and that is 'tazkiyah'. "Succesful is him who does
tazkiyah on his soul". This success is for those who become aware of
possess taqwa, the firm understanding of the 'limits of God' that save
him from throwing his own self into destruction in the next life. The
Quran is meant to teach the limits, and as illustrated in the story of
Adam, man by himself, without guidance would easily be duped by Satan.
Man's nature is one of haste and forgetfulness and he needs
reminding. And Satan leads man astray through delusion.
The Quran is meant to remind us.
>
> Perhaps if you could give your understanding that would help. I gave
> the dictionary word, and it is how the ayat are translated....
>
>
That was the whole point. You are focused upn a word devoid of the
sentence,. and context it is made in. The word 'play' can mean a game
or it can be used with hurting somebody's feelings by playing with
them. The word 'mithal' can be translated as 'examples' and the
context itself explains what these mithal are used for.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Haddad) wrote:
>I am in awe that you discourse on Qur'an and yet confess you know
>NOTHING of the elementary constituents of Tafsir, namely language and
>its arts.... Subhan Allah.
Actually, I've studied the role and function and dynamic of language
for many years. Remember? That's why I keep bringing up contemporary
issues with how language works. Issues you consistently ignore.
Probably because you simply don't understand, and refuse to learn.
There is a rather detailed discussion of language as text and language
as speech in my dissertation. Kind of relevant to the issue of Qur'an
as recited and Qur'an as written.
Do I know Arabic? Nope.
Have I ever pretended to? Nope.
Do I consistently acknowledge what I don't know? Yup.
Do you? Nope.
Do I discourse on the Qur'an? Nope.
Do I raise issues and questions? Yup.
Do I say "I know"? Nope.
I condition everything with "it seems to me" "it appears to me" "to
the best of my knowledge" etc. I always acknowledge my lack and my
readiness for new information and my readiness to change based on that
information. Heck! I'm the only one here who still ends with the
classic "God knows best"! You don't even do that! And yet, you pretend
to represent classic thought!
Funny how all that is disparaged and seen as indicative of malicious
agendas....
In my educational experience such things were always lauded. My
experience has always been that teachers were excited to have me as a
student.... even recently with a personal fitness trainer! I'm his
star pupil! You, Gibril, are the anomalous reaction. The odd response
over decades of learning...
Do those who pretend to know answer or respond to any of the issues or
questions? Nope.
Well, they do... but only with clear expressions of disdain and
contempt for, and accusations of nefarious agendas on the part of the
student.
Guess that's why illiteracy is so high in the so-called Muslim
countries-- another one of my consistent themes and complaints-- the
dismal state of religious education. Students are abused and
dehumanized! I can now see why Ibn Warraq is so bitter he rejects all
religion as sick dreams and has built a life based on revenge for
those injuries. I can only imagine what goes on in actual classrooms.
And it ain't pretty.
Actually Gibril, from my perspective you are the one who needs to
study how language works. As said, and ignored, you imply familiarity
with the material, but have never actually shown familiarity with the
material. And what is worse, you don't even want to explore.... you
simply hate people for being sinners and reject ipso facto whatever
good they may have done, or any knowledge Allah may have given them.
Well, I guess you'll get the same amount of mercy and understanding
you show to others.... which isn't much at all.
So tell me, which is worse: someone who doesn't know and says he
doesn't know, or someone who doesn't know and thinks he does?
Oh... I forgot.... you don't actually answer questions put to you. Do
you?
Perhaps you'll change.
God knows best.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>>
>> First of all, the Qur'an doesn't say this. It DOES say God uses
>> parables-- and signs and patterns in creation.... and some other
>> things.... to communicate.
>>
>
>The Quran says that it was revealed in clear Arabic so that men may
>understand. We are talking about understanding the BOOK itself.
>Thus, when the Quran refers to how the phenomenon of rain brinsg life
>to the dead earth in the context of ressurection, the point becomes
>rather obvious.
Yeah.
The issue here, remember, is reading the Qur'an and hadith as
predicting-- in an exceptionally non-ordinary way-- contemporary
scientific ways of understanding certain phenomenon.
>Of course it does. I don't disagree with you at all. My point was
>lessons are taught from history and they are taught from parables,
>irrespective of the genre. One can intepret literally and still
>understand the lesson.
To understand the lesson means one has already interpreted as a
parable. That's what a parable IS.
I think some people just don't like the word "parable" and think it
somehow means "made up" or "false". It is seen as a negative, rather
than an extremely positive word.
That would be a major, foundational interpretative difference, and
lead to more differences.
>> So what would you say is the ultimate purpose of the Qur'an?
>>
> The
>Quran is meant to teach the limits,
I'd say the Qur'an is meant to teach and show the possibilities, not
limits. An extremely expansive and wide-open view. It would seem there
is a foundational difference there.....
My experience reading Qur'an is the same as it first was.... like I'm
standing in a wide-open vista... with breezes of possibility-- scents
on the wind-- speaking of other places.... y'know what I mean?
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message news:<nudnbvcr1iikqkv9i...@4ax.com>...
>> On Fri, 9 May 2003 12:11:39 +0000 (UTC), asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> To separate out and stress the physical aspect to our experience of
>> reality is, it seems to me, more Cartesian-mechanistic than
>> Tawheedian-wholistic.
>>
>
>All knowledge is based upon concrete experience,
We're into major issues of semantics....
I have problems with "concrete experience".
We form statements of truth and falsehood out of a combination of
experience AND interpretation. There is no such thing as human
experience without an interpretation. That is, the human experience of
reality is never "raw"..... outside of languaging. We always give form
to experience.
> and whether we like
>it or not, our conceptions of those higher realities will always have
>a touch of 'anthromorphism'.
I can't go with that either. The concepts may be clearly
anti-anthropomorphic, but still always limited by language. Language
can point beyond itself, and the human is aware reality transcends the
human experience of reality.
> We cannot escape illustrating these
>realities in language
A big "yes"!
However.... language is broad.... i.e. we can illustrate these
realities through art-- a type of languaging, though not necessarily
verbal. Indeed, art may be more useful for communicating such matters
than is verbal discourse.
Which would lead to another topic: the Qur'an as work-of-art..... to
me, fascinating possibilities reside in that!
>>
>> Not "the Qur'an" in and of itself. Rather, our human encounter with
>> the Qur'an.... that is, only the human encounter. The Qur'an
>> transcends itself, but for the human who actually reads the Qur'an,
>> yes... everything falls under the art of interpretation.
>>
>The Quran is a book of guidance from God Almighty, and evolves, but it
>does not mean that man cannot understand what is intended by the
>verse. The Quran says it was revealed in clear Arabic so one can
>'understand', and language is meant to express truth, otherwise it
>defeats the very purpose of language.
Well, its both, right? Some parts are clear, others are not.
What is clear or not may change through time.
>> My assumption is that we are homo hermeneuticus-- everything,
>> constantly, no exceptions, the whole of human experience IS the art of
>> interpretation.
>>
>
>But the very purpose of guidance is so that man does not fall away
>from properly experiencing life. It is meant to distinguish between
>what is true and what is false.
Yes.... it guides the possiblities of interpretation. Otherwise the
possibility is too wide-open. We can drift and float, or produce
interpretations that border on the schizophrenic. That's why I can't
support "Qur'an Only".
>> Allah Most High will tell us what we really did and what really
>> happened and so on.
>>
>
>Allah has also told us what to do and what not to do.
Which obviously isn't as clear as some would have us believe.
Otherwise there wouldn't be such disparate groups and theologies in
the Qur'anic traditions.
> God has
>created man in stages, and we have nothing to do with our
>'development', than how is it we deny the power of God to raise man a
>second time.
That would be how I understand it. I wouldn't go with *just* the
immediate context though to get that..... its also other ayat such as
it is God Who gives laughter and tears, riches and poverty. i.e. God,
and God alone, does *everything*. We just go with the flow--
submitting to what He does-- so to speak. Or try and swim against it!
>The Quran ITSELF DEFINES how it is to be understood. The main point I
>was making is that the context itself indicates what is intended by
>the verse about 'mithal'.
Yeah. My issue would then focus on "context" in the Qur'an. Its a
topic that is certainly key. I guess I'm uncomfortable unless the
Qur'an as a whole is the context. And then, context expands out.... to
Sunnah, to language, to science, etc. and thus understanding may
change... maybe even change radically.
>> With regard to actual Shari'ah issues this topic would have relevance,
>> it seems to me, with regard to legalism and reduction of Qur'anic
>> practice and understanding down to jurisprudence.... i.e. seeing it as
>> only or primarily a book of law, rather than The Transcendent.
>>
>
>The point I was making is that values are taught in law, history, and
>parables. The verse about the 'mithal' is not speaking about parables
>in 'history' but about metaphysical truths.
Yeah. All I'm saying is the history stories are about those
metaphysical truths (even though I don't really like the word
metaphysical!). Whether they are "what really happened" or not is just
irrelevant, and so a focus on that-- i.e. scientific-hermeneutic of
the Qur'an-- is off-kilter-- which is the point of this whole
discussion--- does the Qur'an (and now hadith for some) "predict"
contemporary ways of understanding fetal development? The point is
that is a questionable approach to Qur'anic interpretation. And not
just questionable, but perhaps flat-out wrong.
> The context of the Quran
>negates such an intewpretation as does the whole book itself.
Wait. Now you've lost me. Y'mean that the history stories are used as
parables??
>> Because I don't understand the Qur'an as a history book. That's an
>> assumption/presupposition.
>>
>
>But that does not mean the Quran does not relate history as a fact.
Right.
I certainly do not deny that may be the case. I've been more than
clear on that.
My issue has to do with when people focus on that, rather than the
parable aspect, as happens when people use a scientific-hermeneutic.
>A
>historical truth teaches just as much as a parable.
Depending on how it is presented it IS a parable!
Again, parable does not mean "not true".
A history story can be told as simply a recording of what really
happened, or as a lesson for today.....
I'm now repeated things I've already written more than once.
>> Because I see each verse in the context of the whole text-- not just
>> what comes directly before or after a particular verse.
>
>First, you are isolating the verse but not understanding it as part of
>the whole.
Um, read my sentence again. Your response implies I said the opposite
of what I said!
>Third, the verse is directed primarily at the Bani Israel
Ok. See... here is where there is a key switch, and issues of
assumptions we bring to the text..... I read it as primarily directed
towards me, personally. It is *about* Bani Israel, but *for* me. This
is a foundational point, it seems.
>> Again, for me, the context is the text as a whole. And actually, the
>> context is large than that... the text, what people say about the
>> text, personal experience, related issues, etc.
>>
>
>And who is saying it is not?
Uh, people who want to find contemporary science in the Qur'an (and
hadith). That is the whole issue here.....
>You constantly say its about the whole,
>yet you have not even defined how you take mithal to understand
>certain verses. I want you to give me a concrete example from the
>Quran itself where you can take this evrse and apply it to the text.
The example you gave above is fine.
You wrote the verse is directed primarily at Bani Israel. To me, the
verse is directed primarily towards me, personally-- as a parable, a
lesson couched in the language of history and perhaps the actual
events of history. The primary reading for me is not as a history
story, but as a parable relevant to my actual life, here and now.
Whether or not it "really happened" is completely irrelevant to its
import for me in my actual daily life as it is actually lived.
>> Uh, what is the reason for the pork prohibition?
>>
>
>It is unclean, and affects our moral well-being.
Not in any way comprehensible to contemporary people.
>The food we eat affects us morally, and psychologically.
Then we can devise an experiment to show that eating pork has effects
in these areas.... see below.
>Your misunderstandings has
>> >nothing to do with the Quran explaining things 'clearly' so that 'men
>> >may understand'.
>>
>> I guess that explains why Muslims in the Qur'anic traditions seem to
>> kill and hate each other with some regularity?
>
>And your point is?
That the Qur'an is not so clear and easy to understand as some people
may think. Are Muslims known today for piety and good deeds? Nope.
Given that, I have to think the Qur'an is not as so clear as many
would have us think.
> Muslims are like all human beings. They do not
>approach the Quran with the intent to pursue the truth, and they do
>not desire to follow the truth.
Could be a bit of both. Though I'm focusing on the "understanding"
part. When we argue over whether the Qur'an is predicting contemporary
science we are dealing with the understanding part-- not the "no
desire for truth" part.
>> Some things are clear, others are not....
>>
>
>And the fact that we cannot eat pork is clear. It is not a mithal.
I did not say that verse was a parable.
Not all the Qur'an is parable. There are prayers, commands,
exhortations.
The "do not eat" is clear. The "why" is not.
If we took the "do not eat" as parable (or, more likely today, as
merely an expression of disease-carrying foods of the past) it seems
to me we would be headed off into an extremism of another sort....
>> >No, the Quran says it is unclean
>>
>> That is not an actual reason for us today.
>>
>
>It is the actual reason for us today. Uncleanliness in the Quran
>refers to BOTH physical uncleanliness and moral uncleanliness.
This may back you into a corner.
It would be relatively easy to design a study to discover if this is a
correct understanding or not.
Take pork eaters, take those who do not eat pork. Measure physical
cleanliness. Measure morality. Report results.
If we see no difference then that understanding is incorrect.
But as it stands, "unclean" is certainly not the common understanding
of the word. There is something much more to it that is not "clear" or
simple.
> Gudiance provides us knowledge in which our intellect may
>falter or intellect cannot reach by its own
Yes to that. Revelation kind of picks up where reason must stop.
But..... we get into problems with "know".
I don't think we actually know anything. Rather, we produce statements
about what is true or not that have degrees of probability....
including out statements about the Qur'an.
Isn't hermeneutics fun? ;-)
GF Haddad
I apologize to all and to Jeremiah McAuliffe for any egoistic
indulgence in pursuing my line at the expense of Muslim decorum in
this thread. I admit this was not Qur'anic manners on my part.
I hope any non-personal substance in my responses redeems at least
part of this exercise. I would settle for 0.1%. That good 0.1% was and
remains my sole intention. I grant the same principle - not to say the
same proportion - to my respondent(s) as well.
The intentions of the Believers are always better than their actions.
This is not to justify myself. The soul does command wrong.
Astaghfirullah.
Hajj Gibril
G. Waleed Kavalec
> The intentions of the Believers are always better than their actions.
> This is not to justify myself. The soul does command wrong.
> Astaghfirullah.
>
> Hajj Gibril
Salaam
My actions, too, in my role of moderator fell far short of my
intentions.
It was up to me to man the gates and failed to remain alert.
Once again Allah has found it necessary to remind me that I am only
human. I apologize to you and SRI for my sloppy screening efforts.
Peace
G.
Tomasz Antkowiak
And you are truly worthy of the title of Shaykh! May Allah (swt)
reward you for your humbleness.
There are people who don't even possess a DROP of the ocean of
knowledge that exists within you and they would NEVER humble
themselves. They only continue spreading there inaccurate beliefs all
at the will of their nafs.
SubhanAllah, you are a genuine heir to the Prophets and a star of
guidance.
Allah Hafiz,
Tomasz Antkowiak