حَبلِ الوريد Perception and meanings; Vocal Cord.

[Mazhar]

Quran e Majeed had informed mankind, 1400 years back, as follows
"We will keep making it visible to the eyes of those who do not accept Quran, the signs/knowledge in the Universe and in their own bodies till it becomes evident for them that this Quran is a statement of proven fact" {Refer 4153}
The Grand Quran has informed that Allah will keep revealing, the knowledge about the universe and human body, and it will become manifest to the people that the Quran is a statement of proven fact. Why would it become manifest that the Quran is a statement of proven fact when man sees/perceives new knowledge about universe and human body? If the things mentioned in a book written earlier in time and space are subsequently found a scientific fact only then it is evident to people that the Book is really a statement of proven facts and not conjectural and presumptive.
Allah has informed us
"And indeed We have created the man. And We know with what thought {heart} inspires his self. And We are nearer to that thought than the cord that makes reach, when it is taken/received from right side and left side by the two Receivers, each sitting on one side. Man does not throw away any word from his statement except that there is always one near him alert to take that {for recording}" {Ref 5016-18}
Traditionally the translation of above quoted Ayahs is as under
YUSUF ALI It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein. Behold, two (guardian angels) appointed to learn (his doings) learn (and noted them), one sitting on the right and one on the left. Not a word does he utter but there is a sentinel by him, ready (to note it)
PICKTHAL We verily created man and We know what his soul whispereth to him, and We are nearer to him than his jugular vein. When the two Receivers receive (him), seated on the right hand and on the left, He uttereth no word but there is with him an observer ready
SHAKIR And certainly We created man, and We know what his mind suggests to him, and We are nearer to him than his life-vein. When the two receivers receive, sitting on the right and on the left. He utters not a word but there is by him a watcher at hand.
Rashad Khalifa We created the human, and we know what he whispers to himself. We are closer to him than his jugular vein. Two recording (angels), at right and at left, are constantly recording. Not an utterance does he utter without an alert witness.
Whatever has been stated as translation and explanation it is actually the material they picked up from old Exegeses like Ibne Kathir, Al Qurtabi and Jalalain. And in almost all the exegeses in Urdu and perhaps in other languages too, if they had merely copied, similar material is found.
Let us first study the perception and meanings infolded in the individual words used
Root In lexicons we find its meanings as low and faintly heard sound; to speak indistinctively or with confused manner; prompt or suggest something that disturbs the mind and confuses it. The Quran has given and explained in a very simple manner the perception infolded in this word. It says???????

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/002.%20Meanings%20and%20Tabweeb%20of%20words/007.%20Habalil%20Warid%20%20VOCAL%20CORD/07.%20Hablil%20Warid%20Vocal%20Cord.htm

I solicit comments, views and suggestions for corrections, improvements.

[ILisa]

Beautiful translation! bravo

Thank you for sharing your work..... please continue!!

[Mazhar]

Dear Ilisa, {your gender is not available on the folder; therefore dear may suffice}

Thanks for encouragement. I am trying to continue firstly with those topics which, according to best of my knowledge, have not been touched earlier by anyone on the net/books. Here it continues
Perception and meanings; Ear has its own memory.

A person/personality is one who is , one who listens and has vision., "And indeed Allah is eternally the One Who is a Listener with Vision" {Refer 0458, 134). A man is also a person who has the freedom of will/ decision/action. And this freedom would be of any meanings only if the man could acquire knowledge
"We have created the man from a Sperm mingled with others, We have to test him, for that We have made him capable of listening with vision" {Refer 7602}
Can we acquire knowledge merely by seeing something with our eyes?
"And He taught Adam the names of all things; thereafter He placed those things before the angels;

and said "Tell Me the names of these if you are truthful {about your saying about Adam}"
They said, "Glory is for You; We don't have the knowledge; we know only what you taught us" {Refer 0231-32}
The angles had given their opinion/observation with regard to human's future conduct when they were told that Adam is being given freedom on earth, . It was merely an opinion/presumption not based on complete knowledge. After making the Adam know the names of all things the same were presented before the Angles and were asked to name them to prove that whatever that had opined was based on comprehensive knowledge. Truthful is only he who makes a statement based on complete knowledge; a statement based on incomplete information/data does not rise to the level of truth; it is merely an opinion not worthy to be treated as truth at the given point of time. But at the same time it is not a lie since it is based on some data/information and is not merely an imaginative assertion. The opinion would prove either to be correct or wrong only at a point in time later than it was expressed when further data/information/conduct becomes visible. That is why scientists do not lie, they opine whereas philosophers do lie when they base study on a presumption/imagination/myth. Scientists never waste the time of humanity; philosophers do. ?????????.More

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/002.%20Meanings%20and%20Tabweeb%20of%20words/009.%20Ears%20that%20remember/09.%20Ear%20has%20its%20own%20memory.htm

I solicit comments, views and suggestions for corrections, improvements.

[ILisa]

Greetings Mazhar,

Perception and meanings; Ear has its own memory.

I don't understand where this is coming from. Is the above Arabic phrase from Al Qur'an?

A person/personality is one who is , one who listens and has vision., "And indeed Allah is eternally the One Who is a Listener with Vision" {Refer 0458, 134). A man is also a person who has the freedom of will/ decision/action. And this freedom would be of any meanings only if the man could acquire knowledge
"We have created the man from a Sperm mingled with others, We have to test him, for that We have made him capable of listening with vision" {Refer 7602}

Hmm....nice. But how about expanding on 'b-S-r' --- 'vision' seems narrow in this sense that you present it in. What's the wider meaning or implications of 'b-S-r'?

"And He taught Adam the names of all things; thereafter He placed those things before the angels;

and said "Tell Me the names of these if you are truthful {about your saying about Adam}"
They said, "Glory is for You; We don't have the knowledge; we know only what you taught us" {Refer 0231-32}

This is most interesting.... think about the ability to name something....How is it that we humans are able to name things? It is through a sense of feeling separate from other parts of creation. My understanding is that it is at this point that God gave mankind the sense of being 'separate'. Angels and all of the rest of creation don't have this ability. They see themselves as interconnected to the whole of creation, part and parcel and as such will always play their positive role in the web of creation, as God commands. Whereas humans, because we have this delusion that we are separate (which can be a good thing and a bad thing) are able to create havoc on earth by making bad decisions due to our shortsightedness or as you've said, lack of complete knowledge. Freedom is not total 'freedom' from everything...'freedom' has to do with contigency and necessity. If we are 'free', then we, in our hearts and minds, have the state of contingency wherein we can at any point re-focus our intent or goal to create a new set of necessary actions on our part. Angels don't make their own focal point or goals, they only do what they are told to do. So they are not free, and not able to think about or decide what they think they 'should' do -- as I understand.

That is why scientists do not lie, they opine whereas philosophers do lie when they base study on a presumption/imagination/myth. Scientists never waste the time of humanity; philosophers do.

Well, I'd say never say never! The problem with scientists is the tendancy to think linearly, whereas all of life functions upon the principle of non-linearity.

I'll be looking for your 'next installment'!!

Lisa

[Mazhar]

"If we are 'free', then we, in our hearts and minds, have the state of contingency wherein we can at any point re-focus our intent or goal to create a new set of necessary actions on our part. Angels don't make their own focal point or goals, they only do what they are told to do. So they are not free, and not able to think about or decide what they think they 'should' do -- as I understand" {Lisa}

"Freedom" and "independence" are two things poles apart. No creator, including Allah, grants independence to a created thing. That will negate the very existence of the Creator. "Freedom" denotes the ability to choose from the given options. We have been given "Najadain", Angeles have not been shown "Najadain" so they do what they are asked to do. But I don't thing they are a creature who does not have a desire. Were they void of any desire there was no point that while highlighting the possible "misdeed" of a freedom granted man they also referred to good work they keep performing. Between the lines there was something which they wanted to say but did not say. That is why in the end Allah had also told them " I know what you say and what you withhold back".

[unknownuser]

"Freedom" and "independence" are two things poles apart. No creator, including Allah, grants independence to a created thing. That will negate the very existence of the Creator.
I believe freedom and independence are one and the same or rather mutually inclusive.

Angeles have not been shown "Najadain" so they do what they are asked to do. But I don't thing they are a creature who does not have a desire. Were they void of any desire there was no point that while highlighting the possible "misdeed" of a freedom granted man they also referred to good work they keep performing. Between the lines there was something which they wanted to say but did not say. That is why in the end Allah had also told them " I know what you say and what you withhold back".
Why would God need angels as His body guards?

As per traditional cursory religious beliefs, God created angels to obey and follow His commands while at the same time He created Satan and his body guards jinns in opposition. Isn't this why we have God and Satan, good and bad, love and hate, construct and destruct, ... and so forth? You've conveniently taken angels as an example to support your understanding of freedom and independence but forgot to consider all other aspects of nature, other creatures and everything that comes and goes around? Can you elaborate on this please without getting offended, as it seems an interesting topic of discussion? Thanks.

[ILisa]

"Freedom" and "independence" are two things poles apart.

I never mentioned the concept of 'independence'. I don't understand why you're bringing this concept into play here.

No creator, including Allah, grants independence to a created thing. That will negate the very existence of the Creator.

By definition, nothing 'negates the very existence of the creator'. And as created beings, we are very dependent on the Creator, if we weren't, we wouldn't exist!

"Freedom" denotes the ability to choose from the given options.

I don't agree with this statement -- see my previous message..... 'freedom' consists of two states contingency + necessity, otherwise it is not 'freedom'. There is no such thing as the popular notion of 'freedom' being that I can do whatever I want, whenever I want. It's an impossible state within the laws of creation as we know it to be.

But I don't thing they are a creature who does not have a desire. Were they void of any desire there was no point that while highlighting the possible "misdeed" of a freedom granted man they also referred to good work they keep performing.

I don't know about angels and 'desire'. I haven't thought about this in depth, but my inclination is to say that they are devoid of desire --as desire is a deep wanting combined with strong emotion. However with that issue aside nonetheless, the example you've stated is not an example of desire. What are the angels emotionally wanting??

[unknownuser]

I believe freedom and independence are one and the same or rather mutually inclusive.
Why would God need angels as His body guards?

As per traditional cursory religious beliefs, God created angels to obey and follow His commands while at the same time He created Satan and his body guards jinns in opposition. Isn't this why we have God and Satan, good and bad, love and hate, construct and destruct, ... and so forth? You've conveniently taken angels as an example to support your understanding of freedom and independence but forgot to consider all other aspects of nature, other creatures and everything that comes and goes around? Can you elaborate on this please without getting offended, as it seems an interesting topic of discussion? Thanks.

It depends. Freedom of what? Freedom of will has nothing to do with independance (relatively speaking).

Yes, why would "God need angels as His body guards"? In fact, why do you even percieve God as a humanlike figure?

As per traditional cursory religious beliefs, God created angels to obey and follow His commands while at the same time He created Satan and his body guards jinns in opposition. Isn't this why we have God and Satan, good and bad, love and hate, construct and destruct, ... and so forth? You've conveniently taken angels as an example to support your understanding of freedom and independence but forgot to consider all other aspects of nature, other creatures and everything that comes and goes around? Can you elaborate on this please without getting offended, as it seems an interesting topic of discussion? Thanks.

Interesting...

[unknownuser]

It depends. Freedom of what? Freedom of will has nothing to do with independance (relatively speaking).
Likewise, "independence from what"? Relatively speaking, freedom and independence has the same connotations, however you look at it.

Yes, why would "God need angels as His body guards"? In fact, why do you even percieve God as a humanlike figure?
Given the attributes of God, that's the question YOU need to answer, since such tales have been speculated via ancient belief systems and are written obtusely in "holy books", LOL!

Interesting...
)

[unknownuser]

Likewise, "independence from what"? Relatively speaking, freedom and independence has the same connotations, however you look at it.
Given the attributes of God, that's the question YOU need to answer, since such tales have been speculated via ancient belief systems and are written obtusely in "holy books", LOL!
)

Freedom and independance are complements of each other, so of course. Not in some cases though.

As for the second, I don't need to answer. I have never seen "angels as his body guards" and I don't have such a vision. Remember that when God "speaks", he is not constrained by human language. When programs on your computer "speak" to each other, does that mean they are also humanlike?

[unknownuser]

Freedom and independance are complements of each other, so of course. Not in some cases though.
Previously, you mentioned that "freedom of will" has nothing to do with independence and now you are alluding that freedom and independence complement each other but not in some cases. Can you provide examples of each to better understand your thought?

As for the second, I don't need to answer. I have never seen "angels as his body guards" and I don't have such a vision. Remember that when God "speaks", he is not constrained by human language. When programs on your computer "speak" to each other, does that mean they are also humanlike?
OPF, you don't need to answer or simply don't know the answer? As per Quran, what do you think angels are or how do you "vision" them, that is, if you know the answer?

[unknownuser]

Previously, you mentioned that "freedom of will" has nothing to do with independence and now you are alluding that freedom and independence complement each other but not in some cases. Can you provide examples of each to better understand your thought?

OPF, you don't need to answer or simply don't know the answer? As per Quran, what do you think angels are or how do you "vision" them, that is, if you know the answer?

It's subjective, semantics, etc.

Freedom of will = the right to choose whatever
Independance from a creator = having absolutely no need for the creator.

Now, in the Quran, it gives full freedom of choice (rather, the choices), but no independance. Independance, I mean, by means of the sustenance provided by God as described in the Quran. It is purely impossible to be independant from the creator since we would ourselves have to either be the God, or a god, i.e. existing out of time (hence negating any percievable effect of a creator).

On the other hand, you have freedom of action, and that is tied to independance from a creator. I can't think of any good examples (yet).

As for the next, I have yet to come to a genuine understanding, so the best answer would be "I don't know". What I do know is that angels don't seem to be these sorts of humanoids or maybe even physical, or whatever. Given the descriptions in the Quran, these "beings" are far from "angels" (are we using the biblical perception?).

[unknownuser]

Thanks for your understanding, OPF, that's more like it, appreciated.

It's subjective, semantics, etc.
Yes, I agree; lot of things are.

Freedom of will = the right to choose whatever
Independance from a creator = having absolutely no need for the creator.
I believe that when one has freedom of will, for example to choose, then one is independent of thought, the very will to choose. If the option is restrained or restricted, then one is neither independent nor has the freedom. I've given some thought on these terms and therefore believe that both are relatively same. Atheists for example, do not believe in God, hence they are free from certain religious indoctrinations. Holy books contain both unimaginable and inapplicable conceptions (from ancient beliefs - confined) and as well as fundamental principles of natural existence (universal). I believe this is where human beings limit themselves and part company.

Now, in the Quran, it gives full freedom of choice (rather, the choices), but no independance. Independance, I mean, by means of the sustenance provided by God as described in the Quran. It is purely impossible to be independant from the creator since we would ourselves have to either be the God, or a god, i.e. existing out of time (hence negating any percievable effect of a creator).

On the other hand, you have freedom of action, and that is tied to independance from a creator. I can't think of any good examples (yet).
Actually, the notion of God along with the strict reliance upon Quran (or holy books), negates both freedom and independency. On the contrary, I can only keep a subjective view of a Creator without drumbeating and not believe in "holy books" (or part thereof) and accomplish the same fundamental goals of living a realistic and meaningful life.

As for the next, I have yet to come to a genuine understanding, so the best answer would be "I don't know". What I do know is that angels don't seem to be these sorts of humanoids or maybe even physical, or whatever. Given the descriptions in the Quran, these "beings" are far from "angels" (are we using the biblical perception?).
Thanks for being straightforward. You may want to read this link out entirely and let us know what your thoughts are http//www.feedback.nildram.co.uk/richardebbs/essays/angels.htm

[ILisa]

Greetings OPF,

On the other hand, you have freedom of action, and that is tied to independance from a creator. I can't think of any good examples (yet).

If I may....

Just think of the example of a parent and a child. The parent gives the child allowable parameters in which the child has a bit of freedom, yet not the freedom to go outside of those proscribed parameters.

Example

"Johnny, here is a box of coloured pencils and some drawing paper. You may use these tools to draw anything you like, for up to two hours, but once the time is up, you must stop working and put the pencils and paper neatly away."

Freedom and independence, contigency and necessity, all rolled into one.

[Mazhar]

Quote from Mazhar on August 11, 2007, 015410 PM
erception and meanings; Ear has its own memory.

I don't understand where this is coming from. Is the above Arabic
phrase from Al Qur'an?{Ilisa}

This was a new topic

Quote
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/002.%20Meanings%20and%20Tabweeb%20of%20words/009.%20Ears%20that%20remember/09.%20Ear%20has%20its%20own%20memory.htm

It is from here

"So that We may make it a matter/message to be described, and it may be remembered by, an ear acting as receptacle for retaining"{Refer6912}

As for the discussion regarding the perception conveyed by ?freedom? and ?independence?, Brother OPF seems to have put it excellently as
It's subjective, semantics, etc.

Freedom of will = the right to choose whatever
Independence from a creator = having absolutely no need for the creator.
The Quran has beautifully made the distinction between the two

{Ref 3515} The Independent in Only One; the created is not independent; he enjoys freedom of action/decision not independently but in the given framework of things. Independence does not know restrictions imposed from outside. Anything dependent upon something or restricted by something gets out of the fold of being called or regarded as independent. Only he can be considered independent who is ??

[ILisa]

Anything dependent upon something or restricted by something gets out of the fold of being called or regarded as independent.

Greetings Mazhar,

We all know and understand (at least we should) that God alone is independent beyond any restrictions, etc. However, there are degrees of 'independence'. I do not see it as an 'either/or' situation and didn't realize that you were implying that freedom meant total freedom from a Creator. Mankind has been granted a degree of independence, but never independent from the one who created him.

[Mazhar]

Dear Ilisa,

Agreed. I am trying a demarcation line between "freedom" and "independence"; this will help us reaize the difference between "thing, shain" and the "person, Ghair shain". "Shain" is further divided into one having freedom and the other tied by "taqdeer". "Freedom" is restricted to just one's will/decision/desire and beyond that one has nothing; beyond that everything is performed by someone else or under the will/desire of someone else. This is the reason we have been advised not to say that "I will do this and that tomorrow" but always add "InshaAllah" "If Allah so wills". Allah wants us to be always truthful in what we utter from our mouth. I say I will do this tomorrow. It is my will/decision/desire; it can't rise to the point of truth. And if tomorrow I cant do that, due to millions of possibilities, it will take me to the point of a liar. But if I had made it conditional, Allah willing, my utterence at the point of time I said it was truthful and even I could not not do it to prove my self truthful, I remain truthful since my statement was conditional/qualified. Truthul and liar is related only to what we say from our mouth. By asking us say "InshaAllah" Allah is not glorifying Himself, He wants us to be dignified.

[ILisa]

Greetings Mazhar,

Thanks. Got it. yes

[Mazhar]

From the first translation and exegese of Grand Quran in any other language to the last translation and exegese in any language of the world verses 5016-18 were perceived with reference to jugular vein.

It is the first time on Free Mind Org that someone has said that Quran did not refer to Jugular vein.

It is strange that there is no input for my guidance/correction/improvement from Lexicon experts, linguists and experts of Classic Arabic whether what has been said is right or wrong. Should I understand that it is absolutely perfect and therefore find strength in my argument that all lexicons/opinions of classic arabic experts are merely minor sources of assistance since Quran has a built in system of defining and assigning meanings and perceptions to its words and concepts?

[ILisa]

Should I understand that it is absolutely perfect and therefore find strength in my argument that all lexicons/opinions of classic arabic experts are merely minor sources of assistance since Quran has a built in system of defining and assigning meanings and perceptions to its words and concepts?

Well, I'm not one of those experts, but I'd say that 'absolutely perfect' might be pushing it a bit; however I'd agree on your point about the Qur'an having it's own built in system. I would add that the Qur'an's system + creation, working together with 'inspired information' help us to understand definitions. -- For whatever my opinion is worth to you! -\