Just who is the Servant in 17:1?
-
Peace,
This is a thread from another forum (the writer has been since been censored because of this thread)
The truth about 171 "Asra" - the night journey (posted by Owen Cranston)
Just who is the Servant in 171?I have just completed reading the beginning of Chapter 17 of QXP and applaud Dr Shabbir for pointing out the absence of the concept of "Miraj" or bodily ascension in this chapter.
However there is a concession to the common misconception of a "night journey" by Muhammad here and an opportunity to learn about a deeper concept of the Qur?aan is therefore missed completely.
What I mean is that 171 is commonly thought to refer to Muhammad and that the night journey - "Asra" is alluding to a movement of Muhammad by night from masjid-al-haram to masjid-al-aqsa. Common translations of the Qur?aan need to insert the name Muhammad into this verse through the use of parentheses. The term used in 171 is unambiguous in that it says "Servant".
Using the principle of QXP - Qur?aan as it explains itself - we need look no further than the following verse to decide who the identity of the "Servant" is. I think all the evidence points to the "Servant" as being MOSES, not Muhammad.
If one looks at 172 the verse begins with "Wa" meaning "and" which follows up with a mention immediately of the prophet Moses.
Now that is not the only evidence for this - there is enough evidence to prove that the "Servant" is Moses. Note that in 171 the Servant in question is summoned by God - compare this to verse 2012 where Moses is summoned and told that he is in a "sacred valley" when he reaches the fire. The place this servant is moved during one night is "blessed" just like this sacred ground that Moses reaches.The second piece of evidence is that Moses is indeed shown some of God's greatest Signs. Moses is shown for example the shining hand, the staff turning into a snake, a mountain crumbling and the tablets. In 171 this showing of signs is again mentioned explicitly.
Thus the evidence is quite strong. Moreover the journeys proposed for the prophet Muhammad from masjid-al-haram (which is thought commonly to be in modern day Makkah) to masjid-al-aqsa whether it be Jerusalem (which it cannot be since it did not exist) or Madina (which Dr Shabbir reasonably suggests as an alternative) is impossible to travel in the space of a single night.
Now this adds some more weight to the Servant being Moses - because Moses actually sees a fire at the sacred valley - most likely at night where such a fire would be clearly visible. The night would also bring coldness - a purpose that Moses mentions that he might visit the fire ie. to bring a torch therefrom to warm the family vis a vis 2010, 277 and 2829.
So there is at least 4 clear evidences from the Qur?aan itself that show that verse 171 indeed is mentioning that the "SERVANT" is in fact MOSES and has nothing at all to do with Muhammad which later scholars have attempted to use as a means of fabrication.
This is a highly important issue as it brings to light the true nature of the "masjid-al-haram" and "masjid-al-aqsa" so please ponder on this quite carefully. Any and all discussion is welcome.
The post I have made examines a highly important issue without using anything controversial. I have used only the Qur?aan and justified fully the reasons in as clear a way as possible.
The only reason that this question is being asked is because the proposition is contrary to traditional thought. When you rightly in QXP presented the fact that there was NO "Miraj" included in this verse the feathers would surely have been ruffled.
If one truly looks at what I have presented completely free of the fog of previous thought then the assertion of the "Servant" being Moses is almost certain but obviously open to debate. People have simply dismissed the evidence and want to put forward the pre-conceived ideas to support the status quo. I have yet to see any rebuttal of the salient points that point to the servant in 171 being Moses and not Muhammad as commonly asserted.
The BIG issue is the one that I pointed out clearly in the post. The verse contains "masjid-al-haram" which is pre-conceived to be in Makkah. Now I urge all who examine this issue to remember that the people of Moses also had a "Qiblah" so that these terms should not automatically endorse the traditional interpretation.
We should not hinder growth in knowledge by denying or concealing legitimate and valid questions and issues.
I pointed out that this issue is something to discuss following the determination of the evidence. By concentrating on the term "masjid-al-haram" one is using a priori assumptions to examine the evidence.
Moreover the verse has the term "masjid-al-aqsa" that if it were not for scholarly research as well as exposition such as Dr Shabbir has presented in QXP would still be determined to be in Jerusalem; which it is not. This should be a clear example that pre-conceived ideas will hinder true knowledge. The notion that "masjid-al-aqsa" is in Medina also presents the problem of plausibility of travel in a single night.
Try to look at the evidence presented that the night journey was a straightforward guidance/movement of Moses from where he was with his family to the sacred valley which he saw in the distance as a burning fire(blessed surroundings in 171) to witness God's signs (exactly as in 171) and clearly documented in other verses as I have presented. Moreover the very next verse mentions MOSES by name after linking with an "AND".
A Typical Response of The Unlearned Blind Followers
Re The truth about 171 "Asra" - the night journey
Muhammad Asad espouses too the non-belief in the physical miracles, but provides a different explanation.
For him, the servant was Muhammad (the prophet), and the trip was a spiritual (not physical) one.
Some quotes of Asad
(http//www.geocities.com/masad02/appendix4)It is obvious that this kind of spiritual experience is not only not inferior, but on the contrary, vastly superior to anything that bodily organs could ever perform or record; and it goes without saying, as already mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim, that it is equally superior to what we term "dream-experiences", inasmuch as the latter have no objective existence outside the subject's mind, whereas spiritual experiences of the kind referred to above are not less "real" (that is, objective) than. anything which could be experienced "in body", By assuming that the Night Journey and the Ascension were spiritual and not bodily, we do not diminish the extraordinary value attaching to this experience of the Prophet, On the contrary, it appears that the fact of his having had such an experience by far transcends any miracle of bodily ascension, for it presupposes a personality of tremendous spiritual perfection - the very thing which we expect from a true Prophet of God. However, it is improbable that we ordinary human beings will ever be in a position fully to comprehend spiritual experiences of this kind, Our minds can only operate with elements provided by our consciousness of time and space; and everything that extends beyond this particular set of conceptions will always defy our attempts at a clear-cut definition.
it should be noted that the Prophet's Night Journey from Mecca to Jerusalem, immediately preceding his Ascension was apparently meant to show that Islam is not a new doctrine but a continuation of the same divine message which was preached by the prophets of old, who had Jerusalem as their spiritual home
Now, please have a look at(Shakir) And when We said to you Surely your Lord encompasses men; and We did not make the vision which We showed you but a trial for men and the cursed tree in the Quran as well; and We cause them to fear, but it only adds to their great inordinacy.
(QXP) And, We said to you (O Prophet), ?Behold, your Lord encompasses all mankind, so We have given you the Vision." (Through this Final Message, We have given you the VISION that they shall all become One Community again). Those who hinder this Plan will end up eating the bitter and pungent Tree of Division that is mentioned in the Qur'an (719), (1426), (1539), (1760), (3765), (3882), (4444). This Vision and the Tree of Division shall be a test for them. Now We have conveyed a warning to them, yet, for a time it shall increase them in great rebellion. (But mankind shall win their lost Paradise (235)).
Why would not the vision refer to the story in ?
Which would (like Asad thinks) symbolise the fact that the message of the Quran is the same message as the other prophets? one ...
And would (like Dr Shabbir thinks) lead to the final result that mankind shall become one community again?
Re The truth about 171 "Asra" - the night journey
Thank you for this response. I have read Muhammad Asad's rendition and also find it to be quite reasonable in many views. I did not raise the issue of 1760 in my post as I believe it relates to other verses and not to 171.
174 through to 177 are verses of prophecy and mention the entering of a "masjid" on two separate occasions.The "vision" in 1760 to my understanding relates to 4827 where the Messenger's "vision" is again mentioned. 4827 mentions the entering of the "masjid" on the first occasion relating to the dominance of true early Islam.
However 176 prophecises that the Bani Israil will be given the upper hand for some time which may indeed be our present time. Following this period of supremacy they will be defeated utterly on the second occasion when the "masjid" will be entered for the second time by true submitters to God alone.
This I believe relates to the refocusing of muslims to God and thereby Quran alone and is most certainly quickening in our time. We witness it clearly in places like the internet.
As always these represent my views at the present time and are subject to change in the light of new or better knowledge.
Re The truth about 171 "Asra" - the night journe
How can be Bakkah considered as mecca of to days saudi arabia? on what basis, I dont know why Dr. Shabbir has also used it in QXP, earlier i had asked for my clarification for it and my post was deleted, I am again putting forward why Bakkah is Meca can any one in this forum some light on it.
Posted By Dr. Shabbir
Date Thursday, 4 November 2004, at 830 a.m.
In Response To Re The truth about 171 "Asra" - the night journe (Owen Cranston)
I realize that Sir, I mean the distance. But it might allude to the beginning of the journey at night.Re The truth about 171 "Asra" - the night journe (Owen Cranston)
In Response To Re The truth about 171 "Asra" - the night journe (Dr. Shabbir)Respected Dr Shabbir,
I now understand the insertion of the word "initiated" into 171 of QXP.
My understanding of the word "laylan" however is 'by night' or "during the night" and since the entire movement between the two masjids is described to have been completed then I am not able to share this feeling of initiation rather than a completed journey since the word "initiated" could certainly have been explicit.Again I am amazed that God has placed another sign of this in a nearby verse 1712 - That the night and day are signs, that each are separate, and that they are used for calculating times. The fact that they occur in verse 12 - ie. half of 24 hours is perhaps more than just a coincidence.
Another sign is 251 in which Moses is again described to have been summonned for 40 nights. Again the reference to night fits. 172 relates directly to this giving of the scripture to Moses.
This is further detailed in 7142 - 7145 in which the thirty nights plus ten was the time in which the tablets were written and the mountain crumbled when Moses wished to see God manifest.
Thus the weight of the evidence and 'Occam's razor' help in determining which of the two is the mentioned servant.
Peace,
You have a very good point . Do you see here any specific reason for using the word "servant" instead of "Moses" ?Peace be on you Arif, (Posted by Owen Cranston)
I cannot suggest a conclusive reason for this choice of 'servant' but here is my understanding that may help.
Many of the prophets and messengers are described with this word. In 173 Noah is the servant, in 181 it is Muhammad, and 192 mentions Zacchariah as the servant. Surahs 37 & 38 have many messengers mentioned as servants.
The only common thread I can see through these mentions is that God uses the term when He describes an event that occurs that does not involve the role of the individual as a messenger to people. Usually it is an event which involves the person and God directly. God thus uses servant when He is describing the relationship between the one chosen and Himself.
I hope that helps.
-
peace,
check this thread right here too (i know you got this from this forum) http//64.227.163.32/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?read=25049
in response to him one of the guys there said
Dear Mr. Owen Cranston, Peace and blessings!
This 80 plus year old man has been studying this website since its inception some years ago. It has given the viewers a beautifully balanced platform to get enlightened and unitedly stand on, all based on the pristine teachings of the Qur'an.
I commend this website for valiantly upholding the Truth while discretely thwarting all excesses of orthodoxy or schisms in the name of "modernity".
In your country they say, "Don't fix it if it is not broke."
Everyone is entitled to hold their beliefs and tenets. Therefore, my humble suggestion to you would be to stick to your ideas but refrain from propagating them where they are not welcome.
Count me among those who completely reject your notions and propositions as being alien to the Book of Allah.
There are many other websites who would rather gladly entertain your thoughts.
With best wishes,
Ismail
this sounds like "advice" the idolators would have given a prophet that came to them
some other responses he recieved in this thread
Mr. Cranston, Peace
Meaning no favour or insults to anyone, I find this website the most balanced one out there.
Being a senior diplomat in Beijing, I am a keen student of our (human) behaviour.
I have not read, but rather closely studied, all of your posts. You are a learned gentleman, no doubt.
Sometimes we fall for sensationalism without knowing it. Then, we begin to (unknowingly) derive pleasure in challenging and opposing every idea. It appears to me that too many strayed websites have vitiated your brilliant mind.
Among others, the most grievous insult that has come from your good self is trying to stick 17/1 to Prophet Moses.
Sir, if you cannot honour Muhammad SallAllahu-alayihi-wasallam, the milieu of Beacon might not be for you.
May be you can write your own translation of the Quraan.
No offense intended.
Sincerely,
AfsaraDear Sis Christina, Salam
I am afraid you did not have a chance to look at Mr. Cranston's hurtful posts ridiculing the Prophet (saw), Kaabah, Salat, Saum, Mecca and Medina etc in various modes. He opposes and challenges almost each and every ordinance and belief so succincly given in the Quraan.
His mind seems to have been contaminated by the deviators like Rashad Khalifa and Aidid Safar.
Let us cling to the pure Quraanic truth.
Saadia