Tasreef/Crossreference understanding of Jesus's deeds---Miracle belief rejected
-
Peace Arnold, all,
I DO NOT SAY GOD CANNOT CHANGE HIS LAWS, I SAY HE HIMSELF HAS SAID HE WILL NOT CHANGE IT.
BUT, my understanding of the Quran which I have layed out, is that God says Himself that He will not change His Decrees in the Universe as this is not necessary
I have already shown in an earlier post how the examples Arnold's gives from al-qur'aan to support his conjectures highlighted in red do not mean what he says they mean. Whenever God mentions His "sunnah", He mentions in a context and it is THE WAY MENTIONED IN THAT CONTEXT THAT HE NEVER CHANGES, for example, giving evil respite for some time and then destroying it. Where He mentions His words never changing, IT IS THE WORDS MENTIONED IN THAT CONTEXT THAT HE NEVER CHANGES.
The word "Be" is mentioned as the truth, and using that word, God can create any law He wants thus performing whatever He wants, whenever He wants. Some laws are used commonly and consistently, but other laws which are not yet understood or known, are used rarely to perform certain things that appear as "miracles", just because we do not see them happening more often. This does not mean that those laws do not exist or those rare things cannot or will not happen.
Arnold (mis)interprets by not using context to define what "sunnah" or "word" of God means, and gives those words invented meanings based on his pre-conceived notions. One can use the same kind of logic and say that His way also includes creation of a human from hardened clay, a certain sea parting at a certain time, or certain chopped up birds coming to life again at a certain time, or for a man dying for a hundred years and then getting resurrected, or humans sleeping for hundreds of years. All these things happened due to His word "Be" governed by as yet undiscovered laws of nature. The only difference is that these things do not happen commonly.
- THERE ARE CERTAIN LAWS THAT WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE GOD USES RARELY.
- RARE USAGE OF THOSE OTHER LAWS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE COMMONLY USED LAWS HAVE CHANGED.
- CERTAIN PHENOMENON HAVE OCCURRED RARELY DUE TO APPLICATION OF THOSE OTHER LAWS.
The God uses certain laws of nature commonly and consistently, but on rare occasions, He performs certain actions that appear miraculous to us, governed by OTHER LAWS which are as yet not understood by us.
NOTHING IN THE SIGNS OF AL-QUR'AAN CONTRADICTS THAT, AND THE OCCURRENCE OF CERTAIN INEXPLICABLE RARE PHENOMENON DESCRIBED IN AL-QUR'AAN ACTUALLY PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH LAWS OF NATURE.
For example, let's say there are 4 laws that govern the known commonly occurring natural phenomenon. That does not mean that there cannot be 4 other laws that we do not understand as yet, which The God rarely uses to perform things which appear as "miracles". The existence of those 4 OTHER LAWS does not mean that the 4 common laws have changed; they are just DIFFERENT laws.
-
He says in the Quran that He does not change His Decrees.
-
The Laws of Nature also fall under those Decrees.
First of all the statement # 3 is incorrect, according to the context of usage of God's words in al-qur'aan, as I have already shown in an earlier post.
For argument's sake, let's assume that this "twisting" is correct, the logical question will be
IS ARNOLD ALL-KNOWING AND HAS HE DISCOVERED AND UNDERSTOOD ALL LAWS OF NATURE ?
If the answer to the above questions is NO, which it is, and the fact that rare occurrences of certain phenomenon have been described in al-qur'aan, then the INESCAPABLE AND IRREFUTABLE logical conclusion will be that there are OTHER LAWS that are not yet understood or discovered, that could explain the rare occurrences of some things, which appear as "miracles".
653 talks about God decreeing for everything its fate. This does not rule out His performing certain things that do not commonly occur governed by OTHER UNKNOWN LAWS. For example He decreed the fate of a particular sea to part at a certain time, or for certain chopped up birds to come to life again at a certain time, or for a man to die for a hundred years and then get resurrected, or some humans sleeping for hundreds of years, or for a human being to form from hardened clay at a certain time, and all those things happened just as they were decreed.
Just like God has set a measure for the creation of a human from a sperm, He also uses His "QADR" for creation of a human from hardened clay, or resurrection of a human from dust and bones and fragments.
The truth of the matter is that so many of our problems arise because of our misuse of words and their meanings. The only way to comprehending the Quran is to ascertain the correct meanings of its vocabulary, terminology and concepts.
Very well said ! If only Arnold can apply this same advice to himself !!
It says in Sura An?aam ?Allah knows what is in the seas and on land. He knows every leaf that falls off a tree. He also knows even a grain in the darkness of the Earth. The truth is that each and every thing (in detail) is there in the clearly-set book.? (6/59) That is to say that standards have been set to all things in the universe and are there.
All 659 says is that The God KNOWS each and every thing that happens and has recorded it in detail. It does not mean what is highighted in red above. The God knew about a certain sea parting at a certain time, or certain chopped up birds coming to life again at a certain time, or for a man dying for a hundred years and then getting resurrected, or certain humans sleeping for hundreds of years, or a human being forming from hardened clay at a certain time, and He recorded all those details. 1758 reiterates the same concept.
As the reader can clearly see, there is nothing in al-qur'aan that contradicts certain rare phenomenon occurring because of God's command "Be" and governed by as yet unknown laws of nature. Those rare phenomenon also happen by His "QADR", and are also recorded in detail. The fact that some rare phenomenon have been described in al-qur'aan is a proof of their real and literal occurrence, and is also a proof that there are as yet unknown laws of nature which govern those phenomenon. Those laws of nature do exist, and thus the occurrence of those rare phenomenon does not violate any laws of nature; it is only that we have not understood those laws yet.
-
Peace Tanveer, all,
I know we sit on opposite sides of this topic but I just wanted to add a few comments...
The fact that some rare phenomenon have been described in al-qur'aan is a proof of their real and literal occurrence, and is also a proof that there are as yet unknown laws of nature which governed those phenomenon.
Their mention is not proof in itself. In fact, there is no proof that indicates whether or not a "rare phenomenon" is to be taken literally or metaphorically. So, your conclusion here is false. It is, and always will be, a matter of interpretation and the framework one perceives as the structure of life.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Tay,
I have already shown in a previous thread how Arnold's "metaphorical" interpretations have logical flaws and they don't follow the grammar and the arabic sentence structure of the relevant signs. Please see the following for some examples (from #159 to #163)
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13174.msg110836#msg110836
Is the resurrection of a dead man after 100 years from his bones (2259) metaphorical ?
In 2259, is the resurrected man's saying "I know now that God is capable of all things" referring to God's "metaphorical" capabilities ?
For a relevant discussion (#78 to #86)
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8627.msg113433#msg113433
Is forming a human being from "hardened clay"(1526, 1528, 1533)/"sticky mud" (3711), "like pottery" (5514)metaphorical ?
Is chopping birds and their coming back to life (2260) and making a bird from clay and its coming to life (5110) metaphorical ?
Is certain humans sleeping for hundreds of years and then waking up (1818-19) metaphorical ?
edited to correct the second link
-
Peace Tanveer,
I'm not defending any single point of view, but speaking in general terms. If a person attains guidance from a metaphorical understanding of a written text, and there is no physical evidence to state otherwise, then you really have no argument against that person.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Tay,
If a person attains guidance from a metaphorical understanding of a written text, and there is no physical evidence to state otherwise, then you really have no argument against that person.
How can one attain guidance from a metaphorical understanding of certain words/signs when the grammar, context, and logic of that written text makes a metaphorical interpretation of those words/signs impossible ?
If you believe otherwise then please prove how the signs referenced in my above post can have a metaphorical understanding, without violating logic, grammar, and context, and without a nonsensical English rendering of those signs ?
-
Peace bro Tanveer,
How can one attain guidance from a metaphorical understanding of certain words/signs when the grammar, context, and logic of that written text makes a metaphorical interpretation of those words/signs impossible ?
We are all different bro, some will guidance from the literal and some from the symbolic and some from both yet. The point of contention starts when people get irritated/annoyed at the other for believing in the symbolic aspect or the literal and start being condescending as to which side is "better/more rational etc". Then everyone gets defensive. This entire "ongoing battle" about symbolic vs. literal has always been around, at least on this forum and I think it may be time to realise that God isn't going to punish anyone for their explanations of a particular verse being symbolic or literal as long as they have well reasoned evidence that they think holds to back it up (not touching the law giving verses for obvious reasons, referring to the examples of verses in this discussion only). One can keep on refining their point of view but I personally dislike it when people start taking sides and being belligerent about their opinions. Not saying that you do this of course, just a general comment on the states of these threads.
I learnt a lot from Tay back in the day when we had this discussion and he was the first one to point out about the diversity issue. I maintain that it can be both symbolic and literal depending on the verse in question.
edit to add
I forgot to touch on your question, rambling as I was...the metaphorical understanding can be derived from verses that talk about changing people into pigs for example. Meaning that their natures became piglike etc. Or one can take it literally, as no one can really prove that some people weren't changed into pigs at that time. Of course an entire battle can start right now, as to how which side is more rational and which side is keeping to the clear meanings, which side uses their minds and which side just craves to see a "miracle", which side is logical and which isn't etc. Who gives a flying pig I say. If you have the reasoning behind your claim and you learnt something from it, that's what matters. I don't believe that either side is causing harm to themselves. The key is to learn something from it I suppose whether that happens by seeing some people as pigs or those with the attitudes of one, imo.
-
Peace Sis, all
Dear sis thanks for sharing your thoughts. After refining my own views I also find myself in agreement with you. Also 1736 and 3918 ask us to follow the best. Literal translations make sense to some and metaphorical to others. More important thing is the way/system of life God has prescribed for us to follow. Quran is like the universe to me, different people find different things in it. 37 is also important that reminds us where our focus should be placed. The Book is understandable for a lay man and for a scientist at the same time. We do not know after few hundred years the interpretation of Quran would be completely different and things which seem metaphorical to us change to literal and literal to metaphorical.
Just some thoughts!
Thanks to all of you.
Hamsa -
Peace bro RH,
You're most welcome and I think what you posted makes sense .
-
Peace
I am in agreement with Tanveer with regard to the fact that there can not be two interpretations; real and metaphorical. Also if any interpretations of the verse creates logical fallacies that can not be correct.
Salaam Arnold
My opinion is that the miracles/signs performed by the Messengers were not exclusively to prove the existence of God or the power of God which a person with understanding can see from nature if guided. I think the miracles were mainly performed by Messengers to establish that they were true messengers of God and not charlatans or false Messengers. In the case of Moses as in 2626-34 the signs establish him with an audience with Pharaoh and certain respect. Without the signs Moses would have been treated with ridicule and possibly the threats of Pharaoh carried out.
-
Peace Hamsa
I thought you might be interested in the following verse. It may be relevant to the other verse we discussed earlier.
4 133
Yusuf Ali If it were His will He could destroy you O mankind and create another race for He hath power this to do.
Transliteration Iy yasya' yuzhibkum ayyuhan na_su wa ya'ti bi a_kharin(a), wa ka_nalla_hu 'ala_ za_lika qadira_(n).
Also I thought if Allah is subjected by the natural laws the following is an empty threat.
25 45
Yusuf Ali Hast thou not turned thy vision to thy Lord? how He doth prolong the Shadow! If He willed He could make it stationary! Then do We make the sun its guide -
Peace
I guess there is another way to look at the laws of nature.
Did Allah name natural phenomena as Laws of Nature? No, we named as such. Allah never called these ?Law?.
For Allah natural phenomena is a not natural phenomenon as for man. The natural phenomena are His creation and are His slave. Be it the sun, climate, light, gravity or anything in the earth and the space, it is His slave. We are subjected to natural phenomena since our control of such is minimal. Allah creates and controls nature and it is subjected to Him. Man submits to natural laws whereas nature submits to Allah. Therefore they are not laws for Him just His obedient slaves.
-
Peace Hamsa
I thought you might be interested in the following verse. It may be relevant to the other verse we discussed earlier.
4 133
Yusuf Ali If it were His will He could destroy you O mankind and create another race for He hath power this to do.
Transliteration Iy yasya' yuzhibkum ayyuhan na_su wa ya'ti bi a_kharin(a), wa ka_nalla_hu 'ala_ za_lika qadira_(n).
Also I thought if Allah is subjected by the natural laws the following is an empty threat.
25 45
Yusuf Ali Hast thou not turned thy vision to thy Lord? how He doth prolong the Shadow! If He willed He could make it stationary! Then do We make the sun its guidePeace bro,
4133 doesn't tell us that there are no laws to destroy mankind. God destroy people for their oppression and wrong doings.
2545 tells us God made laws as He willed. -
Therefore they are not laws for Him just His obedient slaves.
His laws are His obedient slaves
what's the difference. ;D
-
Where is the Quranic support ?
Is God subjected by His slaves ?
Therefore they are not laws for Him just His obedient slaves.
His laws are His obedient slavesI just mentioned using or removing the word Law doesn't make any difference.
I think we can agree to disagree on this issue. We are approaching it differently.
Hamsa
peace
-
Peace,
I already closed this argument with Warner, saying the same thing as SC. We almost use the same techniques for understanding the Quran. But our view on Nature, God and purpose are the ones that decide the interpretations. I choose what is for me the most logical as a scientist and theologist. No one is infallible and no interpretation is binding.
This ' contest' is only creating wedges in our movement which we should avoid when possible. We can not resolve this as it is our worldview that makes the difference, not the Quran.
-
Peace Tanveer,
How can one attain guidance from a metaphorical understanding of certain words/signs when the grammar, context, and logic of that written text makes a metaphorical interpretation of those words/signs impossible ?
It's not impossible. The whole point of a metaphor/symbolism is to extract a meaning other than the face values of the text itself. This can easily be done with any story given to us in the qur'an, whether the story actually occurred or did not. It is the guidance behind these stories that is the subject matter of the qur'an.
So, literal vs. symbolic, real vs. fiction, it is all irrelevant, and worse yet, a distraction if the guidance behind the accounts is lost in the argument.
God does not need to brag about the things He's done. The book is for us, for our spiritual development. If it helps you to see it literally, then fantastic. And if it helps me to see it symbolically, then fantastic. Neither view holds a monopoly on the understanding.
Peace,
Tay -
Salaam Arnold
I am in agreement with you on the techniques we use and sorry for posting after the close of arguments. Out of this discussion but on techniques why is it that you trust and follow lexicons and dictionaries and also grammar and language treatises written centuries after the Messenger and mostly by the Persians but do not consider etymology and Semitic use. The use of Arabic in the region after the Quraan was influenced by hadeeth, tafseers and various other sources. For instance a misunderstood word in the Quraan explained wrongly by a hadeeth entering the mainstream language with the wrong meaning and experts inventing roots and different derivatives and meanings for them and use of the misunderstood word becoming common use; all based on a mistake or misunderstanding. Just because the Bedouin (an excellent example of such a mistake) uses some word we will not know the source and the accuracy of the use or the period of origin; post or pre quranic.
Also, as you know Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic are Semitic languages which have lot in common. The previous two scriptures being revealed in the latter two and most possibly the languages of the many Messengers and others mentioned in the Quraan. Do you use these two languages and Semitic roots for understanding the Quran ? Please note I do not recommend blind use of etymology or Hebrew and Aramaic for that matter and the final qualification being the use of the word in the Quran.
But if my observation on your techniques is wrong please accept the second apology for the day.
-
Peace Warner,
I 100% agree, but it doesn't really fit with our discussion does it? Because if the dictionaries would be completely influenced by Hadith, then why can I bring a non-miracle interpretation in the picture with only using the Lexicons, cross-reference and without a pre-conceived interpretation? Hadith were created by people who believed in miracles.
So this is why must hold on to the guidelines of the Quran to get the best full picture. We only differ on one subject, and this is normal. Like you said before, it forces to express our understandings every time on a higher level and let it evolve or be improved or changed. The most important thing is that we do not condemn each other and accusse one side for 'twisting' as this has to do with approach of definitions, not with the Arabic itself.
In the end, the stories of the Prophets are only one little piece inside the puzzle of the Quranic System, I believe we mostly agree on the Quranic system, so we must not fight over such little pieces as this. I have learned to express my thoughts better and better through these discussions and also learned that it is more about world-view then on 'who is right'.
So I thank you for your posts and you do not need to say sorry as you only asked questions, which must always be possible.
We may not agree, but I do hope that I have explained my view in the best way.