If incest is prohibited, how did the human race populate from Adam?
-
Peace Arnold
I believe Jannah and Jahannam are descriptions of states of Mankind that occur in this Life AND the Next Life.
Never did I claim it was only in this Life. Jannah means an Garden that has so much growth, the ground is not seen (JNN=covered/not seen, same root as Jinn). Jahannam is the name of the old garbage dump in Jerusalem, people were sacrificed and executed in the old days there. So it was used as a metaphor for a state of Mankind which cannot develop. Jahim does not only mean fire, it also means to stop something from progressing.
When we live according to System of Allah we can create a state of Mankind in which it can develop without stopping (no Jahim/barriers), this is Jannah, an ever growing garden. In this state the Human Nafs/Self can develop itself so it can conquer death and develop further after death and go into the next phase of the Universe, this is also again being in the state of Jannah. The Quran talks about 2 Jannah's, in this Life and the Next.
If Mankind does not live accroding to the Divine Laws of the Universe, it will keep going up and down and constantly be in a state of Jahannam, where it cannot develop (jahim/barrier), it is in a state of fire as its potentials are wasted and burned up. As a person keeps going against the Laws of the Universe, it cannot conquer death in a positive way and ends up in the Universal garbagedump, metaphorically called Jahannam.
Just as the Quran says in 1317, only that which benefits Mankind will keep existing, just as evolution throws out what is not useful or strong enough, in the same way the Universe will throw out those people which are not fit for further development.
Sorry if I offended you. What I meant was that when I read your description of Jannat and Jahanam on your pages, it was directed towards this life and I didnt see any mention of the next (meaning akhirah) unless I misread it.
I really like your intrepretation, it takes away the fairytales that Muslims, Christians, etc. blindly follow. I also believe about Janaat and Jahannam in this life as well. Its a state of mind.
Keep up the good work.
Peace
-
Peace Br. OPF, Pazuzu,
I think my explanation have been very sparse. What I am implying is I accept that man was/is created in stages. But those stages are fairly obvious, aren't they? Like you said, Br. Pazuzu
But it is safe to assume that from the time of first creation to the time if evolution into Adam, was a gradual process which may have taken thousands of years. This is the grand scale of things, and it does resemble, to a certain extent, how the fetus evolves slowly over a period of 9 months in the mother's belly, as described in the following verse
7113 "Why do you not seek God humbly."
7114 "While He created you in stages?"Such is evolution but on a smaller scale.
Peace..
You hit the nail on the head when you yourself identified the stages of "biological evolution" above from inception to perfection. That is a downright verifiable biological fact. Now if you say, that Adam was a product of a slow process of evolution which may have taken place over thousands of year, then, please explain why 359, when Jesus is being compared to Adam, doesn't go something like this
"The example of Jesus with God is similar to that of Adam; He created him from dust, then He said to him "Be" and he was.... in stages....eventually."
This verse is as simple and straightforward as it can be. and the second half of the verse is referring to Adam. "Be" and he was. Period.
As for 1529
However, WHEN God perfected this human creation (at a later time) through breathing if his Spirit (Ruuh) into it, it became Adam.
By your point of view, Adam was perfected BECAUSE God breathed his Ruuh in him, not before. So 1529 would be understood as "So when I perfect him, by blowing My Spirit in him, you shall yield to him."
Please try to understand this from my point of view. It seems like the theory of evolution is being forced in the Book. I'll just put a simple scenario. Wipe your mind clear of any theory of evolution and then, when you read about the stages, what would be the obvious interpretation that you would arrive at?
Just consider this point from 37.
37 - "He is the One who sent down to you the Scripture, from which there are firm verses; they are the essence of the Scripture; and others which are allegorical. As for those who have disease in their hearts, they will follow what is similar from it seeking to confuse, and seeking to derive an interpretation. But none know its original interpretation except God and those who are well founded in knowledge, they Say "We believe in it, all is from our Lord." And none will remember except the people of understanding."
The Allegorical verses... people will tend to follow writings/sayings SIMILAR TO the allegorical verses, not the allegorical verses themselves. So, when you read the theory of evolution, you related it to the allegorical verses in the sense that, "yes, the Book alludes to something similar to this theory. Therefore, the theory must be the interpretation of those verses." That is exactly the trap that we should be avoiding.
Although, I am sure that most will not agree with my point of view in this regard, but I truly hope that you will understand where I am coming from. Because I feel that I have not been successful in getting my point across.
You will have to excuse me, if I have written anything irrelevant in the post. I am not as proficient as most in this forum.
Peace
-
peace
i think that this verse was sent because christians up until then believed that jesus was created without a man, someknd of miracle birth that goes against laws of nature and in this verse we see that his (jesus's) case is just like adam's (rest of mankind) who came from both male and female.
Not only may it show that Jesus had two parents like the rest of us, but it may also point out that he (Jesus) is similar to Adam (mankind) in that he is no more divine than any one else of us, i.e. he is not a son of a god, or a version of God, or God, like christians say.
-
Peace nerspi, Zulf,
It feels like I am the twilight zone. I actually can't believe what I am reading or what understanding I am getting from your posts. I hope for my sake that I am misinterpreting your posts.
peace
i think that this verse was sent because christians up until then believed that jesus was created without a man, someknd of miracle birth that goes against laws of nature and in this verse we see that his (jesus's) case is just like adam's (rest of mankind) who came from both male and female.
Not only may it show that Jesus had two parents like the rest of us, but it may also point out that he (Jesus) is similar to Adam (mankind) in that he is no more divine than any one else of us, i.e. he is not a son of a god, or a version of God, or God, like christians say.
Where is this coming from? Are you actually implying that Jesus had a father? The Book confirms what happened in the past, what is happening now and what is to occur in the future. It is the Truth. According to the Book, this is what the "christians" thought about Jesus because of his "miracle" birth
1068 - They have said, "Allah has taken a son." Exalted is He; He is the Free of need. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. You have no authority for this . Do you say about Allah that which you do not know?"
Other verses along those lines are 2116, 17111, 184, 1988, 2126. 252, 37152.
Why they used to say that is possibly because they couldn't explain the "miracle" birth. If anything, 359 was revealed to explain its plausibility in light a Truth that they believed in (and still do) and could relate to, i.e. the creation of Adam or the first man, who was created with a father or mother. It questions them, If he (Adam) could be created by God without a father or mother, why is it not possible that a man could be born by God's will without a father?
Are these verses really that vague that apparently there are multiple interpretations to them?
Peace
-
Peace Br. OPF, Pazuzu,
I think my explanation have been very sparse............................................................................
Peacehttp//uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Poof,_There_It_Is_Theory
When God says "be" and it exists, does that mean it comes as above? Simple question and a simple answer. The key point of 37 is the last section, which I think is quite obvious as to the meaning. Someone not having a firm grounding in a subject isn't in a position to comment on it.
The universe is conjectured by people to have been formed in stages, God says in the quran that it is formed in stages and describes some stages in detail, so why is it any different here?
As Arnold Yasin said, which God is more powerful, the one that creates something then patches up until it's "perfect", or the one that creates a completely autonomous creation that tends towards perfection by physical law?
-
http//uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Poof,_There_It_Is_Theory
When God says "be" and it exists, does that mean it comes as above? Simple question and a simple answer. The key point of 37 is the last section, which I think is quite obvious as to the meaning. Someone not having a firm grounding in a subject isn't in a position to comment on it.
The universe is conjectured by people to have been formed in stages, God says in the quran that it is formed in stages and describes some stages in detail, so why is it any different here?
As Arnold Yasin said, which God is more powerful, the one that creates something then patches up until it's "perfect", or the one that creates a completely autonomous creation that tends towards perfection by physical law?
Thanks for your post, Br. OPF. The one thing that I have learned from it is that I don't have a place yet, in this discussion. Thank you for pointing that out to me, before I could make a really serious mistake. I apologize to everyone for any unpleasantries that I may have uttered.
Peace
-
Thanks for your post, Br. OPF. The one thing that I have learned from it is that I don't have a place yet, in this discussion. Thank you for pointing that out to me, before I could make a really serious mistake. I apologize to everyone for any unpleasantries that I may have uttered.
Peace
That was a comment on 37 itself, not on anyone in this thread ???
-
This becomes a problematic question if you believe that Adam was a single individual man.
This is not necessarily true. Adam is a collective noun indicating MANKIND. God created Adam (mankind) and made him his "khalifa" (vicegerent) on Earth. God also made the "malai'ka" (forces of nature) prostrate themselves to Adam (mankind). This prostration is symbolic. It means that God made these natural forces serve mankind.
Furthermore, there is no Eve mentioned anywhere in the Quran. The Quran mentions Adam and his mate (zawjuhu), not Adam and his wife (imra'atuhu). Hence the phrase Adam and his mate must be understood symbolically or collectively.
Those who are used to talking about Adam and Eve as two simgle idividuals are under the influence of the corrupted Jewish scriptures.
The Quran does not contradict science. Belief that the 6 billion+ humans on teh Earth today came from a single couple is scientifically impossible.
Furthermore, the Quran states clearly that Noah was the first prophet.
Peace...
Um, actually Pazuzu, the idea that 6+ billion humans today are descendants of a single couple is scientifically possible. In fact, in one theory of species, the phylogeny species concept, to be a species all existing individuals of a population must be the descendants of a common ancestor--since Homo sapiens are sexually reproducing species then the first Homo sapiens must be descendants of a couple.
That said, it is also possible (probably more possible) that the first Homo sapiens were a small population, descendants of another species.
What we should be questioning is the belief that the first humans had no biological parents.
Shanavas' book had a (to me) more acceptable translation of khalifah. Not 'vicegerent' but 'successor'. Makes more sense if humans are successors of previous species!
-
Peace all,
I agree with the understanding that "adam" is representative of mankind - thus, there is no contradiction with the incest prohibition. Further, "adam" was taught the names of all things, indicating the ability to speak and learn and put things in their proper places. This also coincides with the current understanding of evolution.
Sharp001, you asked
if you say, that Adam was a product of a slow process of evolution which may have taken place over thousands of year, then, please explain why 359, when Jesus is being compared to Adam
The answer is right in the ayah itself
The example of Jesus with God is similar to that of Adam; He created him from dust, then He said to him "Be" and he was.359 tells us that both Adam and Isa were born from dust/clay via the "be" command from God.
347 tells us also that God creates via the "be" command.This, however, is not unique to Adam and Isa...
3020 Among His Signs is this, that He created you from dust;
Who is this in reference to? See also 1837, 225, 3511, 4067.
Furthermore, according to 4068 "...when He decrees an affair, He only says to it Be, and it is". Notice, that this is not a special command just for Adam and Isa. It is whenever Allah decrees an affair.
Therefore, the conclusion is
Adam, Mankind, Isa = created from dust/clay
Adam, Mankind, Isa = created via the "be" commandSo what is 359 telling us?
Adam and Isa were men created just like all other men.Peace,
Tay -
Peace all
Therefore, the conclusion is
Adam, Mankind, Isa = created from dust/clay
Adam, Mankind, Isa = created via the "be" commandSo what is 359 telling us?
Adam and Isa were men created just like all other men.Couldn't have said it any better. Also, if you don't believe in evolution, what exactly does it mean when it says that we are created from dust? Also, that all life is created from water. That is EVOLUTION ITSELF! From one stage to another.
Peace
-
Muhammed Asad
3 59 Verily, in the sight of God, the nature of Jesus is as the nature of Adam, whom He created out of dust and then said unto him, "Be" - and he is.* (3 60) the truth from thy Sustainer; be not, then, among the doubters!
*Lit., "The parable of Jesus is as the parable of Adam...", etc. The expression mathal (rendered above as "nature" is often metaphorically employed to denote the state or condition (of a person or a thing), and is in this sense - as the commentators have pointed out - synonymous with sifah (the "quality" or "nature" of a thing). As is evident from the sequence, the above passage is part of an argument against the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. The Qur'an stresses here, as in many other places, the fact that Jesus, like Adam - by which name, in this context, the whole human race is meant - was only a mortal "created out of dust", i.e., out of substances, both organic and inorganic, which are found in their elementary forms on and in the earth. Cf. also 1837, 225, 3020, 3511, 4067, where the Qur'an speaks of all human beings as "created out of dust". That "Adam" stands here for the human race is clearly implied in the use of the present tense in the last word of this sentence.
-
Br. Arnold,
Could you please provide reference to those verses?
Peace
http//19.org/index.php?id=91,420,0,0,1,0&PHPSESSID=96fa8fe0483eb078fb4b440bfd2fcd67
3133 Move forward eagerly to the tranquil security that comes from your Lord, and to the Paradise that transcends spatial boundaries, encompassing the Heavens and the Earth. It has already been prepared for those who live upright. (Paradise is not confined to the Heavens. Like Hell, it begins right here in this worldly life).
1697 Whoever, whether male or female, does works that help others and is a believer, We shall certainly cause them to live a good life, and We shall grant them the rewards considering the best of their actions.
4131 We are close to you in the life of the world and in the Hereafter. In it (in your paradise on the earth and in the Hereafter) you shall have all that you may desire and in it you shall have all that you ever prayed for.
-
Um, actually Pazuzu, the idea that 6+ billion humans today are descendants of a single couple is scientifically possible. In fact, in one theory of species, the phylogeny species concept, to be a species all existing individuals of a population must be the descendants of a common ancestor--since Homo sapiens are sexually reproducing species then the first Homo sapiens must be descendants of a couple.
That said, it is also possible (probably more possible) that the first Homo sapiens were a small population, descendants of another species.
What we should be questioning is the belief that the first humans had no biological parents.
Shanavas' book had a (to me) more acceptable translation of khalifah. Not 'vicegerent' but 'successor'. Makes more sense if humans are successors of previous species!
230
And the One that brings the whole Existence from one stage to the other made a Decree to the Laws that control the Dominion of Existence
I am placing species that will constantly succeed each other on the (habitable) land (all habitable planets in the Universe)
They announced (as the Outcome of this Decree was shown through the stages of Cause and Effect) "Will You place therein one who will spread disorder therein and shed blood (as these species will develop different understandings of reality and will fight each other because of this). While we strive in the manifestation of your Glory (as we are in harmony with your Decrees which is seen in amazing Goal and order of creation). He made another Decree (that was implanted into the fabric of the Universe) I have the Knowledge which you (the Creation) lacks .
-
.
We cannot see what happens behind our backs or behind our sight or knowledge. And unless we through our sciences could create an amoeba, or a bacteria or a knot or as little a being as virus, we donot argue the creation nor believe in theories and conjectures.So be patient and pray for wisdom
7172
And when your God created the children and the descendants of Adam, from their backs, and made them bear witness against their own souls Am I not your God? They said Yes! we bear witness. Lest you should say on the day of resurrection Surely we were heedless of this.
20.114
High above all is Allah, the Ruler, the Truth! Be not in haste with the Qur'an before its wisdom upon you is completed, but say, "O my God! Improve my knowledge."
If we still argue over that which we have no knowledge, we do wrong to our own souls and it is like we are debating the chastity of Mary too.
. -
It is very rare, but there is an aberration whereby a woman may have two embryos and one of them doesnt develop and nests in the body fo the other embryo, which if it is a female later may develop en her adulthood as if it was her own child, but in fact it is her brother. I can't remember where, but a case like that came up not too long ago in in the news. It was not the first time either I heard of something like that.
So it is in fact quite possible to uphold the Mariam's untouchedness and also her having a child. Of course, there may be other possibilities of which we know nothing, but this is one such possibility.
I agree, that we are all speculating to a greater or lesser extent, which in itself is not wrong, provided we are conscious of it and don't pretend to pass as knowledge our endeavours to acquire it, in which in fact we succeed, although the knowledge we acquire may have nothing to do with the knowledge we sought in kind or amount. But neverthless, wellcome be it and the good company.
Salaam
-
Darwin's theory of evolution is a myth. IKts also been proven unscientific. It is an atheistic dogma hiding behind science. There has NEVER been any evidence for species evolving to other species nor has there been any scientific evidence to show how can that be. Since that would require new information to a species DNA. Species can have variety WITHING their DNA but to evolve into anyhting different requires new DNA information. This is why dogs are dogs and cats are cats and we do not see fish growing limbs and birds growing scales or vice versa. 95% of Darwinist are athiest and they believe in it not because of the science but because of atheism.
All the fossil records has shown repeatedly that species emerge fully form as they are and suddenly. All Darwinist do is pick up an extinct species fossils and claim it is a descendant of so and so. Its all wishfull lies and speculation. Plus the first micro organism is irreducibly complex running on molecular machines. Its not a blob of protoplasm Darwin thought it was.
Nothing in nature can compare to a cell complex structure and evoltion between species has never been observed either today or in the past and so far is scientifically imposible. Watch documentaries about what living organism are
http//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670&q=unlocking+mystery+of+life&total=78&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Plus the lies Darwinist have in their text books
http//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6659285782452089140&q=icons+of+evolution+duration%3Along&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3
You can also see video lectures by Dr duane Gish about fossil records and about the origins of man in video google.
Be carefull about scientist, they are humans like anyone else. Take a look at the other side by proponents of intelligent design(ID). They are knowledgable and honest and don't lie like the darwinist.
-
Darwin's theory of evolution is a myth. IKts also been proven unscientific. It is an atheistic dogma hiding behind science. There has NEVER been any evidence for species evolving to other species nor has there been any scientific evidence to show how can that be.
Muslims developed evolution theory and Intelligent design people also make real real big big mistakes. PLUS, intelligent design does acknowledge development from species to species, but as a result of a designed plan and not by blind change as Darwinists claim it to be.
What you promote is more Creationism, something that is not supported at all by the Quran.
BOTH the Darwinsts AND the Intelligent Designers are wrong on many things as they both neglect to acknowledge that it is the LAWS of the Universe that layout the results.
God does not tinker with His Design as His Design is always perfect. He created the Universe in such a way that intelligent Life would emerge. This is a designed outcome, an outcome calculated as the enviroment and the laws were pre-designed in such a way, that life could only evolve towards intelligence and higher species.
Thus blind change is not involved as Darwinists claim as they neglect to see that the enviroments and laws involved will determine the outcome of life, and the Intelligent Designers are wrong as God does not intervene in the Universe as it is some sort of faulty design that needs upgrading.
God's Design is always perfect from the start.
506 Do they not look at the sky above them how We have built it and beautified it, and there are no flaws therein? 507 And the earth. We have spread it out, and set mountains standing firm on it, and produced therein every kind of beautiful plants in pairs.
You can only claim there are no flaws in it when you do not need to fix it....
I believe in God, the Designer of Laws, which carry out His Will in which His Plan comes out gradually phase by phase untill it reaches its completion. He programmed the Universe in such a way, Life would emerge out of it on its own without need for interferring or fixing up time by time.
-
Muslims developed evolution theory and Intelligent design people also make real real big big mistakes. PLUS, intelligent design does acknowledge development from species to species, but as a result of a designed plan and not by blind change as Darwinists claim it to be.
What you promote is more Creationism, something that is not supported at all by the Quran.
BOTH the Darwinsts AND the Intelligent Designers are wrong on many things as they both neglect to acknowledge that it is the LAWS of the Universe that layout the results.
God does not tinker with His Design as His Design is always perfect. He created the Universe in such a way that intelligent Life would emerge. This is a designed outcome, an outcome calculated as the enviroment and the laws were pre-designed in such a way, that life could only evolve towards intelligence and higher species.
Thus blind change is not involved as Darwinists claim as they neglect to see that the enviroments and laws involved will determine the outcome of life, and the Intelligent Designers are wrong as God does not intervene in the Universe as it is some sort of faulty design that needs upgrading.
God's Design is always perfect from the start.
506 Do they not look at the sky above them how We have built it and beautified it, and there are no flaws therein? 507 And the earth. We have spread it out, and set mountains standing firm on it, and produced therein every kind of beautiful plants in pairs.
You can only claim there are no flaws in it when you do not need to fix it....
I believe in God, the Designer of Laws, which carry out His Will in which His Plan comes out gradually phase by phase untill it reaches its completion. He programmed the Universe in such a way, Life would emerge out of it on its own without need for interferring or fixing up time by time.
There is no scientific evidence to what you are saying. Michael Behe is the only on among the IDers who believes in common descent but even he acknowledges that there is no scientific evidence for that.
Most IDers reject the common descent argument as there is no scientific mechanism to explain it even though the Darwinist keep saying that random mutation and natural selection makes it happen. Since when does random and natural explain science? What you believe is your problem however there is nothing scientific to what you are saying.
