Decoding 69:17
-
@wakas Many people take controlling forces as lords, .e.g sun/moon/stars/rain/fire/etc.
These are controlling forces aka "malaika" according to you?
I am aware of their depiction along your lines in Greek and Hindu mythology, but any reference from the Quran where they have been termed "malaika" would be fine.
-
I thought it would be fun to see how Parwez and Shabbir have gone about 1231, seeing that it contains the M word. I start with Parvez
(31) When Azizs wife heard their malicious talk, she invited them and got a cushioned banquet ready for them giving each of them knife. Then she asked Joseph to come in. When they saw him they were dazed by his beauty. (The women tried their best to entice Joseph but were unsuccessful.) Thereupon they wounded their hands (so that they might accuse Joseph of attacking them) although they knew fully well how pure and strong his character was.
He has avoided the inconvenience by not making a direct reference to the word, but has made a note of Joseph's dazing beauty. (Wonder where he got the tidbits from).
Now comes Shabbir. He denounces the fabrication of Joseph's dazing beauty (while being privy to some undisclosed info himself), but has rendered the M word as "angel," nonetheless
1231 When she heard their gossip, she invited them, and prepared comfortable couches for them, and they schemed. She gave a knife to each of the women. Then, she called Joseph, Come out unto them! And when they saw him they flattered him and cut their hands. They exclaimed in their flattery, Good Lord! This is no mortal man! This is but an angel!
Pretty forceless translations.
-
Are you saying that you understand 2177 to be saying "it is righteousness...to believe in the laws of nature"? Or simply that it is righteousness to believe that there are laws of nature. The latter seems unlikely considering the definite article is attached in 2177 "almalaikati". If the former, then this brings up another difficulty man's understanding of the physical laws has changed, and been corrected, over the centuries. People 1400 years ago would not have had the same understanding of the physical world, and thus for them to believe (as they are commanded) in "almalaikati" as the natural laws would likely entail believing in something false. Our Lord would not ask us to believe in something false.
It is theoretically possible that it is righteousness to believe in the laws of nature, i.e. something akin to the former definition in your quote above. I am not saying this is necessarily the correct interpretation as malaikat furthers merit study; simply saying it is possible. The fact that man's understanding of the physical laws has changed is irrelevant. The righteousness is perhaps in believing in the system itself. Similarly, can we eschew science as a whole simply because our views of what is and is not scientific change over the years? Clearly not, we still believe in the validity of the system (the scientific method) itself.
And to be clear, these "laws of nature" need not only be physical laws; they can also be the 'spiritual' laws the creator has imbued the universe with. In this sense, the interpretation of this verse makes perfect sense. The system of requital (of each person being paid their dues, positive or negative, contingent upon their actions/thoughts throughout life) is what is at stake here, and in a sense, is what the entirety of the quran is about. It is righteousness to believe in this system. And how can we preclude cognitive dissonance vis a vis our belief in this system? Simple, by believing there is (a) a creator who (b) set up a system of requital (symbolized by the Last Day) which function according to (c) the malaikat, the controlling forces/laws/constants, the existence and descriptions of which are encapsulated in the (d) scriptures, which are delivered by (e) prophets. In other words, 2177.
The rest of the verse then goes on to state what one must do to apply these aforementioned beliefs, i.e. how to walk the walk, and not just talk the talk. Peace.
-
This may also please be considered, perhaps there is no scientist enemy to the forces of nature.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/002.217.gif
Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His Angels and His Messengers and to Gib'raa'eil and Mie'kaa'la for that reason Allah is far-off for those who have deliberately/persistently refused to accept.http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/002.02.B.083.htm
-
Firstly, I did not exclusively limit malaika to "nature's laws" (i.e. only those found in our world). I just mentioned that as an explanatory note. The general term would be "controlling forces or forces in control" (not only in our world). I'm not sure to what extent this impacts the rest of what you said.
Ok, I see. My position is that malaika, according to scripture, are conscious and teleological actors. So I could accept "controlling forces" as long as they are not reduced to simple causal relationships that have been observed.
Secondly, the root MLK is full of words such as to rule/command/reign, be capable, to control, power/authority etc. I have not specifically looked for "natural laws".
Yes, so controller makes sense. However, the laws of nature themselves are not literally "contollers", as "to control" is a verb and as such requires an actor. Since the laws of nature are not conscious actors, "controllers" would be a figurative interpretation of malaika.
Re al kitab I am not sure how you define this term, or what you think it refers to. Can you clarify?
In this context I believe it refers to revelation in general, or scripture. Or if you prefer to God's decree of revealing something to man.
I am not sure if I understood your use of the word "allegorical" and "figurative". Can you provide me with a clear and specific example for me to consider.
Sure, as I mentioned previously those categories of the deen which one must believe include God, the last day, prophets/messengers, books and malaika. I think you would agree that anyone denying any of these would ipso facto be outside of the deen which God revealed, so they are extremely important categories. I think you would also agree that none of these categories, in and of themselves, can be understood to be figurative. So for instance, to believe in God, would not be to figuratively say "believe in global warming"; rather "believe in God" is a literal truth, which cannot be allegorized. Thus we believe in God, the lord and creator of all that exists, as it is written in scripture, and not that "God" is a figure of speech for something else. The same analysis applies to prophets, the last day etc. Another example would be Hell, its descriptions may be allegorical, but its truth, or reality, is literal. Hell is not, for instance, an allegory for how man may suffer here on earth during his life. On the contrary, it is a true reality that exist after this life.
Here's why this is important something literal can be described allegorically, but it cannot be defined as such. To define anything is to give it a literal reality. It does nothing to "define" something with a figure of speech, this only begs the question. Thus, malaika (controllers) to figuratively describe the laws of nature creates a major problem, because we don't know what it literally means. What exactly are we believing in when we say "we believe in malaika"? The problem gets worse as we analyze scripture further, for malaika are contantly described as conscious actors (talking to people, revealing future events etc). Since, by our assumption, we take malaika to be non actors (in a conscious, telelogical sense) then all we have left to "define" what we believe in, are simply more allegories.
Re 2177 I dont see an obvious problem in "it is righteousness to believe in the controlling forces... etc". Interestingly, this would make more sense than mystical angels, as how does believing in them make one righteous?
It is righteous to believe in angels precisely because they are unseen and unverifiable by our senses, or instruments. Thus, just as we believe in God, though He is unseen (and could never be seen), by believing in unseen angels with prefect faith we demonstrate that we trust in God with all our hearts.
Their understanding of them is what is false, not that they are false.
Right. However, my point was that the definite article "al" in front of malaika would denote something more than just the fact that natural laws exist. Thus if they have a false understanding of the "natural laws", then they are believing in falsehood (if they in fact believed malaika were the natural laws). If they believed that malaika were just the existence natural laws in general, then the definite article seems confusing.
Their effects can be observed and components, but not the actual controlling force, as far as I'm aware. In any case, Mazhar referenced malaika being visible in one example, thus I am not sure how concrete I would make claims like all malaika are al ghayb etc.
Well I think we can agree that God can reveal aspects of al ghayb to whomever He chooses. Thus, the fact that some blessed people have seen malaika (in the form of men), does not contradict the notion that in general, they are beyond our perception
Re 2161 How does all of mankind condemn/curse those referenced? As for my view, see Shabbir's QXP explanatory note for example.
Mankind's condemnation does not in this verse imply something temporal. For instance, we know on the day of judgment even of those among hell will condemn each other. However, frankly, my own understanding of this verse is irrelevant. My point was simply to demonstrate that malaika here is again being used allegorically, as "to condemn/curse" are verbs and thus actions taken by conscious beings. An equation does not literally curse anyone.
Re 318 Since all controlling forces originate from one unifying source, and all slot in to fit into the big picture, of course they in recognition of one source. Perhaps if the laws of physics were ever-changing then perhaps a recognition of one unifying source could be disputed.
Again my point is to show that logically you must interpret malaika allegorically, as the laws of physics do not literally bear witness to anything. On a side note QXP's translation here is somewhat disingenuous. While knowledge is a valid translation and scientia (science) means "knowledge" in latin, it is absurd to translate it as "men and women of science", as "science" in modern english has the connotation of referring to the "physical sciences". Would you consider an economist to be a scientist? Most people would not, thus his translation is extremely misleading.
Re 380 Many people take controlling forces as lords, .e.g sun/moon/stars/rain/fire/etc.
That's the whole point, these malaika that are taken as false gods and lords, are worshipped with the assumption that they are conscious actors and not simply formulas.
I would like to emphasize that the crux of my argument is that to define malaika (controllers), in any sort of allegorical way, becomes nonsensical once we look at those verses which talk about necessary beliefs. All the other categories of faith are literal, not figurative, clear and unambiguous as to their meaning. Then come "almalaikati", the definite article indicates that they refer to something specific, and not general. Angels are a specific creation by God for a specific purpose, described as though they were conscious and acting. Whereas, "laws of nature" are extremely non specific, they are observed or deduced causal relationships; for instance, why only physical laws? In economic science there are "natural laws" even more certain than those of physics, such as the law of marginal utility. Yet I do not believe the law of marginal utility to fall within the category of malaika.
Throughout the scripture malaika are described as conscious actors with specific functions and tasks, and are generally beyond our perception. To say these descriptions are figurative, is to say that God allegorized "non conscious and non teleological acting" malaika as conscious and acting beings. Surely an absurdity, as the point of an allegory is to relate the subject matter to something that is clearer to the reader, and not to illustrate the opposite qualities.
Peace
-
peace tg,
Rather than dancing around the topic, if you or anyone disagrees, please bring the strongest examples from AQ to refute my position. I will gladly take a look at them.peace Hoppean,
I disagree with your argument of "allegorical" and "figurative". A controlling force, e.g. F=ma, is literal to me, it literally exists, there is nothing allegorical or figurative about it. Its possible you are mixing some things, e.g. I see the story of adam/mankind as a parable, thus I have no problem if AQ describes things in this story in an allegorical or figurative manner.I say controlling forces, some which we know about, some which we do not, some not in our world etc, thus I do not know the function of every malaika, thus when you say what about malaika who know future events, talk to people etc then this is a non-point.
You say a verb needs an actor, then specifically say a concious actor... where did you get this definition from?
As a side note, it's been a while since I studied it, but can you cite a verse where one must believe in XYZ for "deen"? Thanks.
You first say
Thus, malaika (controllers) to figuratively describe the laws of nature creates a major problem, because we don't know what it literally means. What exactly are we believing in when we say "we believe in malaika"?
Then say
It is righteous to believe in angels precisely because they are unseen and unverifiable by our senses, or instruments. Thus, just as we believe in God, though He is unseen (and could never be seen), by believing in unseen angels with prefect faith we demonstrate that we trust in God with all our hearts.
An equation does not literally curse anyone.
See CD's post.
Again my point is to show that logically you must interpret malaika allegorically, as the laws of physics do not literally bear witness to anything
Wrong, see 4153, it all bears witness.
That's the whole point, these malaika that are taken as false gods and lords, are worshipped with the assumption that they are conscious actors and not simply formulas.
Their assumption is wrong, what is your point?
You say
I would like to emphasize that the crux of my argument is that to define malaika (controllers), in any sort of allegorical way, becomes nonsensical once we look at those verses which talk about necessary beliefs. All the other categories of faith are literal, not figurative, clear and unambiguous as to their meaning.
But already said
It is righteous to believe in angels precisely because they are unseen and unverifiable by our senses
Which is it clear and unambiguous OR unseen and unverifiable ?
-
Your claim is that "sun/moon/stars/rain/fire/etc" are "malaika". If at all your studies have involved the Quran, then present the verses where "malaika" has been applied to the the above. If you cannot find a verse to support your claim, I will accept another lame and evasive reply.
-
That's the whole point, these malaika that are taken as false gods and lords, are worshipped with the assumption that they are conscious actors and not simply formulas.
As for Angels/Malaika are concerned no one on Earth ever worshipped them. The evidence to this effect may be read in 3440-41.
-
While Parwez eschewed the M word completely in his exposition of 1231, he has tried a different approach for 68-9.
( These people also ask Why was an angel (malak ) whom we could see not sent down to this Rasool? If Allah had sent such a malak their doom would have been sealed and they would have had no respite.
Looks like he has given "force" the boot for this verse, and stuck to "angel".
(9) If a Malik had been sent down as a Rasool, he would have obviously come in human form. This would have aroused doubts similar to those which they now have.
Wonder how he received the privilege to tamper the text of the Quran and alter "Malak" to "Malik". (unless the website that put up the translation has made a typo).
What should we expect from Shabbir?
68 They ask, Why is not an angel sent down unto him (for them to see)? Well, if We did send down an angel, the matter would be judged at once. And no further time would be granted them after that.
69 And even if We sent an angel, We would certainly have made him in the form of a man. And We (per our Law) would have kept them just as confused as they are confused now.
Along the lines of 1231, Shabbir has expelled "the Universal Forces" and made peace with "angel".
Given the (unsustainable) hoopla they create elsewhere, this appears to be a grudging admission. While their plumbing for "angels" in these verses has no objective value, it does highlight a certain quirkiness in their approach.
Parwez's reference to Alraghib is ambiguous, and the translation of "Malakun" as "forces" (while quoting Alraghib) is unfounded and deceptive. If we reread what he quotes Alraghib as saying, without his own interpolation, the text comes out as this "Raghib says that Malaika, in fact, are the M'alakun who are given the responsibility to discharge certain duties." Plainly, Alraghib talked about "Malakun," and Parwez deceptively translated it as "forces," begging the question.
What makes their case particularly lamentable is the fact that even the Hebrew "Malak/Malach" does not open up an avenue for a fancy revision. In sum, Parwez's presumption provides no ground for renderings such as "forces," "laws," or "equations." And the way he has interpolated the Quran with his juicy tidbits gain him not a whit.
-
@tg
See Asad's translation and notes on 3440-41, 1028 and 380.
Your claim is that "sun/moon/stars/rain/fire/etc" are "malaika".
I actually said "Many people take controlling forces as lords, .e.g sun/moon/stars/rain/fire/etc.". I could have been clearer however. I meant the forces behind these things are taken as lords, e.g. some people think there is a special force behind rainfall so they worship this force, pay it homage, offer it sacrifices etc.
-
Peace everyone
would anyone shed some light on the following verseKhalifa
The angels will be all around, and Your Lord's dominion will then encompass eight (universes).
Yusuf Ali
And the angels will be on its sides, and eight will, that Day, bear the Throne of thy Lord above them.
Shakir
And the angels shall be on the sides thereof; and above ) I them eight shall bear on that day your Lord's power.
Sher Ali
And the angels will be standing on its borders, and above them on that day eight angels will bear the Throne of thy Lord.
how would you make sense of the information given in that verse?Peace,
Respectfully.Seek help from God, ask Him to extend your knowledge.
I have seen many new discoveries in The Quran.Peace.
-
Peace CD, I just want to clarify what I am saying
- To my knowledge (and like I said I?ve only consulted Wehr and Lane) Meem-Lam-Kaf does NOT mean ?natural laws? or ?equations from the physical sciences?. If you find a dictionary that does, I will retract my position.
- As a result, the word ?malaika? has been translated as ?controllers?.
- To control is a verb, a verb is an action, and an action requires a conscious actor. Do you disagree with this? I hardly think this is controversial.
- ?Equations from the physical sciences? and ?natural laws? are NOT conscious actors. I do not expect my guitar to get up and run out the door, why? Because it is not conscious.
- Therefore, to understand ?malaika? as ?equations? or ?natural laws? is a figure of speech, and not literal.*
- Verses 2177, 285, 384, 4136 tell us to believe in ?almalaikati?, among other things.
- If we look at those other things we see that they are to be understood literally
GOD-Literal
The Last day-Literal
Prophets/messengers-Literal
Book/scripture/revelation/alkitabi-Literal
Absolutely none of these are figurative, even by your own understanding. Now we get to ?almalaikati? If you just say ?controllers? then fine, no problem. Once you smuggle in the conjecture that ?controllers? actually mean ?Equations/Natural laws?, then you have nothing to stand on. This is because, I and anyone else, can conjecture as to what ?malaika/controllers? figuratively means. Do you see what I?m saying?
Here comes the biggest problem GOD has asked us to believe in these things mentioned above, including ?malaika?. Since Meem-Lam-kaf does not actually mean ?equations/natural laws?, we are confronted with a real and literal requirement to believe in something that has been defined through conjecture. It gets worse, when we go through scripture all we see is ?malaika? constantly described and illustrated as conscious actors (revealing future events, talking with individuals, etc), which we must now take as mere allegory! Since I can also conjecture as to what ?controllers? really means, then it is totally up in the air as to what it is that we must believe, as per the verses mentioned above.
It?s just my opinion, but I do not think God would ask us to believe in something that is simply figurative, as all the other categories of belief He mentions are clearly to be understood literally.
Whereas, if we simply leave it as ?controllers?, without adding the conjecture, we can safely say that ?malaika? are conscious actors who are charged with certain tasks (162), who are, in general, beyond our perception (2161, 6158, 1633). If I am wrong about this, then I am satisfied that I have taken the words of my Lord at face value, and not invented definitions. However, if those who hold that ?malaika? are NOT conscious supernatural(that is beyond our perception) actors, and that ?malaika? really means ?equations/natural laws?, are in the wrong, then they are not only guilty inventing lies, but also denying an article of faith, which we are asked to believe in.
*If you insist that "equations/natural laws" are literal definitions of malaika then I think you need to explain why the dictionaries do not mention it. Afterall, we cannot just make up the meaning of words.
It is theoretically possible that it is righteousness to believe in the laws of nature, i.e. something akin to the former definition in your quote above. I am not saying this is necessarily the correct interpretation as malaikat furthers merit study; simply saying it is possible. The fact that man's understanding of the physical laws has changed is irrelevant. The righteousness is perhaps in believing in the system itself. Similarly, can we eschew science as a whole simply because our views of what is and is not scientific change over the years? Clearly not, we still believe in the validity of the system (the scientific method) itself.
If by scientific method you mean "empiricism/positivism" then I cannot agree with you, since as far as epistemology is concerned this method is self contradictory nonsense. However, if what you mean is that causality is a true operating principle of the universe, and that by understanding this man can advance his knoweldge, then I agree. Regarding righteousness, well it is not righteous to believe in falsehood and since "empiricism/poistivism" is false, as a theory of knowledge, then it is not righteous to believe in it.
-
Peace CD, I just want to clarify what I am saying
- To my knowledge (and like I said I?ve only consulted Wehr and Lane) Meem-Lam-Kaf does NOT mean ?natural laws? or ?equations from the physical sciences?. If you find a dictionary that does, I will retract my position.
- As a result, the word ?malaika? has been translated as ?controllers?.
- To control is a verb, a verb is an action, and an action requires a conscious actor. Do you disagree with this? I hardly think this is controversial.
- ?Equations from the physical sciences? and ?natural laws? are NOT conscious actors. I do not expect my guitar to get up and run out the door, why? Because it is not conscious.
- Therefore, to understand ?malaika? as ?equations? or ?natural laws? is a figure of speech, and not literal.*
- Verses 2177, 285, 384, 4136 tell us to believe in ?almalaikati?, among other things.
- If we look at those other things we see that they are to be understood literally
GOD-Literal
The Last day-Literal
Prophets/messengers-Literal
Book/scripture/revelation/alkitabi-Literal
Peace Hoppean,
I appreciate the good discussion. I feel like some of the points of dispute you raise are purely semantics.
I completely disagree with point 3. Actions do not require 'conscious actors'. Things that are carried out are done so all the time without sentient entities. Genetic recombination creates a zygote of a new organism. Does the protein synthesis involved in doing so have a "conscious actor"? The wind causes air currents that change the flow of pressure systems, controlling weather patterns. Conscious actor? There are, quite literally, millions of examples. And that's just speaking experientially. We can go the semantic route as well and it's pretty clear that languages allow for actions to be done by non-conscious entities.
Some examples The brick supported the foundations of my house. "Support" is a verb, it is an action. The "brick" is the doer. Is a brick a conscious actor?
The clouds gushed out immeasurable amounts of water. "Gushed" is a verb, it is an action. The "clouds" are the doer. Are clouds conscious actors?I can go on but I'm sure you get the point.
With this in mind, "controllers" can quite easily be non-conscious non-sentient actors that have real effects on our universe, much like clouds or DNA or bricks do. These "controllers" act (in the same sense clouds or DNA or bricks do). And this isn't some pure abstract, semantics issue that has no meaning in the real world. There is actually a growing body of philosophers of science who talk about this exact issue, the issue being named the Anthropic Principle (wiki http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle). The idea that there are fundamental constants with which the universe is imbued. These 'constants' (similar idea to 'controllers' are, in a sense, the rules of the universe. They quite literally ensure the universe operates the way it does. They 'act.' But they are not sentient entities. They are...controllers. Am I saying this is definitely what malaikat refers to? Not necessarily, but it does seem to fit very well. And, again, I don't necessarily think the malaikat only refer to these physical constants, but perhaps 'spiritual' constants as well.
Absolutely none of these are figurative, even by your own understanding. Now we get to ?almalaikati? If you just say ?controllers? then fine, no problem. Once you smuggle in the conjecture that ?controllers? actually mean ?Equations/Natural laws?, then you have nothing to stand on. This is because, I and anyone else, can conjecture as to what ?malaika/controllers? figuratively means. Do you see what I?m saying?
Here comes the biggest problem GOD has asked us to believe in these things mentioned above, including ?malaika?. Since Meem-Lam-kaf does not actually mean ?equations/natural laws?, we are confronted with a real and literal requirement to believe in something that has been defined through conjecture. It gets worse, when we go through scripture all we see is ?malaika? constantly described and illustrated as conscious actors (revealing future events, talking with individuals, etc), which we must now take as mere allegory! Since I can also conjecture as to what ?controllers? really means, then it is totally up in the air as to what it is that we must believe, as per the verses mentioned above.
It?s just my opinion, but I do not think God would ask us to believe in something that is simply figurative, as all the other categories of belief He mentions are clearly to be understood literally.
I believe you are creating a false dilemma here. This distinction of literal vs. figurative is misguided, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with accepting things as allegorical; the quran is rife with them (mathal). At any rate, I don't even believe we are dealing with a figurative issue in this instance. I get the feeling that you think if malaikat don't have mouths and ears and eyes, they are somehow "figurative." Things which are non-sentient and non-conscious can literally exist. We're getting into philosophy and metaphysics now but no matter. Are numbers "figurative" to you? Are numbers literal things to you that operate and have effect on our universe? And I don't mean the symbols we use to capture the idea of a number. I mean the number itself. Is the number 5 something real to you? Why, or why not? Is gravity something real to you, something literal? Why, or why not? Surely you feel the effects of gravity at all times. But it doesn't make a decision to act on you. It just...does. It just...is a rule of our universe. Is it figurative?
Whereas, if we simply leave it as ?controllers?, without adding the conjecture, we can safely say that ?malaika? are conscious actors who are charged with certain tasks (162), who are, in general, beyond our perception (2161, 6158, 1633). If I am wrong about this, then I am satisfied that I have taken the words of my Lord at face value, and not invented definitions. However, if those who hold that ?malaika? are NOT conscious supernatural(that is beyond our perception) actors, and that ?malaika? really means ?equations/natural laws?, are in the wrong, then they are not only guilty inventing lies, but also denying an article of faith, which we are asked to believe in.
*If you insist that "equations/natural laws" are literal definitions of malaika then I think you need to explain why the dictionaries do not mention it. Afterall, we cannot just make up the meaning of words.
The dictionaries mention "controllers" and the word actually perfectly encapsulates this idea. I wanted to make one point here again about conscious actors and literal/figurative. As mentioned, the quran does use allegory and there is nothing contradictory/difficult about accepting that. For example, 2218 speaks of stars, the sun, the moon, mountains, etc. prostrating before Allah. Prostrating is clearly a verb, an action. Are the stars/suns/moon/mountain conscious actors? Or is Allah speaking allegorically here? Why is malaikat so different? 3410 has mountains being asked to glorify. Are mountains conscious actors? There are many examples like this.
If by scientific method you mean "empiricism/positivism" then I cannot agree with you, since as far as epistemology is concerned this method is self contradictory nonsense. However, if what you mean is that causality is a true operating principle of the universe, and that by understanding this man can advance his knoweldge, then I agree. Regarding righteousness, well it is not righteous to believe in falsehood and since "empiricism/poistivism" is false, as a theory of knowledge, then it is not righteous to believe in it.
By scientific method, I meant the scientific method (wiki http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_scientific_method), not a particular strand of philosophy. My point was, we don't abandon the the scientific method altogether because of a flux in our knowledge base. At one time, scientists believed the earth was flat. We now know it is not. Should we have abandoned the scientific method altogether just because scientists' views on the shape of the earth has changed? Hardly. Similarly, our exact knowledge of the particulars of what the controllers are may evolve/vary/change. Doesn't mean the controllers themselves change, just that our knowledge of them has changed. Scientists' belief that the earth was flat didn't make the earth actually flat.
Peace.
-
I completely disagree with point 3. Actions do not require 'conscious actors'. Things that are carried out are done so all the time without sentient entities....I can go on but I'm sure you get the point.
Peace
It?s good that we narrowed down the issue of disagreement. Here?s my point We are not talking about whether the phenomena is real, we are talking about the use of language to describe it. All those examples you gave do not contradict what I?m saying, they reinforce it. Do you truly believe that the bricks supporting your home do so of their own volition? Obviously not; do you believe that atoms choose to behave in a certain way? That is, they have their own will and can act consciously? The fact that we use this type of language to describe these phenomena does not mean it is literally true; and I will prove it to you If atoms had their own wills and could act as they wished, you could not study them (as the physical sciences currently do) and you could not derive any observable relationships. It is only because their behaviour is governed by constants, unlike human behaviour, that we can deduce anything at all. As a funny example see the use of calculus and ?modeling? in economics, and its laughable results; ?economists? tried to incorporate the method of the physical sciences into the human sciences with predictable and embarrassing results. So you see? All those examples you gave are simply figurative ways of speaking, the effects are true and real, but we describe them using figures of speech. If you truly believe that non sentient things act from their own volition, as opposed to being governed by constantly operating causes then we?ll just agree to disagree.
With this in mind, "controllers" can quite easily be non-conscious non-sentient actors that have real effects on our universe, much like clouds or DNA or bricks do. These "controllers" act (in the same sense clouds or DNA or bricks do). And this isn't some pure abstract, semantics issue that has no meaning in the real world. There is actually a growing body of philosophers of science who talk about this exact issue, the issue being named the Anthropic Principle (wiki http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle). The idea that there are fundamental constants with which the universe is imbued. These 'constants' (similar idea to 'controllers' are, in a sense, the rules of the universe. They quite literally ensure the universe operates the way it does. They 'act.' But they are not sentient entities. They are...controllers. Am I saying this is definitely what malaikat refers to? Not necessarily, but it does seem to fit very well. And, again, I don't necessarily think the malaikat only refer to these physical constants, but perhaps 'spiritual' constants as well.
I have read The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, The Fabric of Reality and other works, I am perfectly familiar with this ?branch? of physics. Your points above are all interesting speculations, but they remain just that. We have a specific command from God to believe certain things, one of them is malaika, what do we make of this? Yes Natural Laws ?fit? as controllers, but you know what? I can think of other categories that will ?fit?. In the end, is this all we have just the speculations of our own limited minds? It is something that a believer must believe, how is it that we can leave it to conjecture?
I believe you are creating a false dilemma here. This distinction of literal vs. figurative is misguided, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with accepting things as allegorical; the quran is rife with them (mathal). At any rate, I don't even believe we are dealing with a figurative issue in this instance. I get the feeling that you think if malaikat don't have mouths and ears and eyes, they are somehow "figurative." Things which are non-sentient and non-conscious can literally exist. We're getting into philosophy and metaphysics now but no matter. Are numbers "figurative" to you? Are numbers literal things to you that operate and have effect on our universe? And I don't mean the symbols we use to capture the idea of a number. I mean the number itself. Is the number 5 something real to you? Why, or why not? Is gravity something real to you, something literal? Why, or why not? Surely you feel the effects of gravity at all times. But it doesn't make a decision to act on you. It just...does. It just...is a rule of our universe. Is it figurative?
We are not discussing accepting ?things? as allegorical, in principle. We are discussing whether malaika can in fact be understood allegorically. I assume you would agree that one cannot simply pick and choose what one wants to be allegorical? The mistake is in thinking that just because there are allegorical verses that anything and everything can be interpreted a such. Let?s stick to the verses cited They teach that a believer must believe certain things, such as malaika. If malaika is translated as controller, fine that fits well with the description given throughout scripture, malaika have authority/control, no problem. Once someone says ?No those descriptions are all allegorical because malaika/controllers really means natural laws/equations?, then people are just conjecturing and anyone can have their opinion of what controllers really means. If we don?t accept the descriptions of malaika as literal in the scripture, then this category, that believers need to believe in, is anyone?s guess and there?s no way of saying if anyone?s right or wrong. Do you see what I?m saying?
I think there?s a misunderstanding here, we are talking about the use of language. My position is that malaika is being used by some in a figurative way because it does not actually mean ?equations/natural laws?. ?Controllers? does not mean ?natural laws? either, to say that it does is conjecture, and this is not something we should be doing when it comes to scripture.
The dictionaries mention "controllers" and the word actually perfectly encapsulates this idea. I wanted to make one point here again about conscious actors and literal/figurative. As mentioned, the quran does use allegory and there is nothing contradictory/difficult about accepting that. For example, 2218 speaks of stars, the sun, the moon, mountains, etc. prostrating before Allah. Prostrating is clearly a verb, an action. Are the stars/suns/moon/mountain conscious actors? Or is Allah speaking allegorically here? Why is malaikat so different? 3410 has mountains being asked to glorify. Are mountains conscious actors? There are many examples like this.
Yes but ?controllers? also ?perfectly encapsulates? other ideas. See, Just more speculation. Meanwhile people who read the scripture need to know what it is they need to believe in. If someone says malaika are NOT angels, then the person who reads it as such, believes in a falsehood. The quran using allegories is not the discussion however. The discussion is on the verses mentioned in my previous posts and how the categories therein are to be understood literally, except (according to some) for malaika. Remember we are discussing the use of language in those above mentioned verses, and whether it should be taken as it is written, or whether there is some occult meaning to which few are privy, yet all are commanded to believe in.
By scientific method, I meant the scientific method (wiki http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_scientific_method), not a particular strand of philosophy. My point was, we don't abandon the the scientific method altogether because of a flux in our knowledge base. At one time, scientists believed the earth was flat. We now know it is not. Should we have abandoned the scientific method altogether just because scientists' views on the shape of the earth has changed? Hardly. Similarly, our exact knowledge of the particulars of what the controllers are may evolve/vary/change. Doesn't mean the controllers themselves change, just that our knowledge of them has changed. Scientists' belief that the earth was flat didn't make the earth actually flat.
You implied in your earlier post that this ?method? was ?righteous?, so wouldn?t it be incumbent upon us to first find out if this method is true or false? That?s why I asked you what YOU meant by ?scientific method?, I know what others say already. Do you believe that all evidence for whether a proposition is truthful or not, must be empirical in nature? Can I go about finding out the truth of something without gathering measurable and observable data, or formulating a hypothesis and testing it? If you answer yes to these questions then that is empiricism and it is epistemologically meaningless. If you answer no, then your notion of ?the scientific method? is different from the common understanding, and that?s all I wished to clarify.
To restate I never said that because people had false understanding that one should abandon anything. If you re read my post you will see that I was attempting to pin down exactly what one is supposed to believe with respect to "malaika". Is it that there are natural laws, in general? Or is it the belief in specific truths/equations as natural laws? In that context, I said that the latter option was nonsensical because our understanding of "true" natural laws has changed and been corrected. The former option did not work, in my opinion, because of the definite article in front of malaika. Now I believe you said earlier that it meant the "system" or "scientific method", which I don't think is valid either because of "malaika" being plural in those verses I cited.
Peace.
-
Peace
It?s good that we narrowed down the issue of disagreement. Here?s my point We are not talking about whether the phenomena is real, we are talking about the use of language to describe it. All those examples you gave do not contradict what I?m saying, they reinforce it. Do you truly believe that the bricks supporting your home do so of their own volition? Obviously not; do you believe that atoms choose to behave in a certain way? That is, they have their own will and can act consciously? The fact that we use this type of language to describe these phenomena does not mean it is literally true; and I will prove it to you If atoms had their own wills and could act as they wished, you could not study them (as the physical sciences currently do) and you could not derive any observable relationships. It is only because their behaviour is governed by constants, unlike human behaviour, that we can deduce anything at all. As a funny example see the use of calculus and ?modeling? in economics, and its laughable results; ?economists? tried to incorporate the method of the physical sciences into the human sciences with predictable and embarrassing results. So you see? All those examples you gave are simply figurative ways of speaking, the effects are true and real, but we describe them using figures of speech. If you truly believe that non sentient things act from their own volition, as opposed to being governed by constantly operating causes then we?ll just agree to disagree.
Peace Hoppean,
I'm starting to see more clearly the difference in our viewpoints. I don't think the bricks do anything "of their own volition" but that's sort of my point. The "of their own volition" part is an assumption on your part, is it not? It's related to your 'action --> therefore, conscious actor' supposition. I never said these things act of their own volition; in fact, I am claiming the opposite. You call this a 'figurative way' of speaking. Okay, I won't argue with you there, as that is mostly an issue of semantics. The point is, it is a function of language (as you noted) and the quran itself displays this function on many occasions, some of which I pointed out.
I have read The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, The Fabric of Reality and other works, I am perfectly familiar with this ?branch? of physics. Your points above are all interesting speculations, but they remain just that. We have a specific command from God to believe certain things, one of them is malaika, what do we make of this? Yes Natural Laws ?fit? as controllers, but you know what? I can think of other categories that will ?fit?. In the end, is this all we have just the speculations of our own limited minds? It is something that a believer must believe, how is it that we can leave it to conjecture?
I will be the first to admit that I'm mostly running on speculation. I have not studied this enough to confidently state things are one way or the other. But, in the interest of full disclosure, I must tell you the general framework with which I approach the quran I don't take any issues/concepts for granted anymore, as I have seen too many meanings made up by (for various reasons) scholars who then forced those meanings onto the text of the quran. Some of this was done for political reasons, some are just a result of interacting with Judeo-Christian culture. Again, this is speculation, but I think it's quite possible that the interpretation of malaika as 'angels' (commonly seen as winged sentient creatures that perform various tasks) is an example of the Judeo-Christian culture leaving an imprint on the text. Mind you, the text obviously doesn't change but everyone approaches the text with certain preconceived concepts in mind, ideas which were transplanted in them by scholars/jews/christians. The meaning and the text become almost indistinguishable and everyone takes the meanings as self-evident. It is this line of thought that I resist. Does that mean that 'malaika' can't be angels? No, of course not. Malaika can definitely be angels, I submit that. I just won't start out assuming malaika means angels by default. In other words, just assuming malaika = angels, is also speculation.
We are not discussing accepting ?things? as allegorical, in principle. We are discussing whether malaika can in fact be understood allegorically. I assume you would agree that one cannot simply pick and choose what one wants to be allegorical? The mistake is in thinking that just because there are allegorical verses that anything and everything can be interpreted a such. Let?s stick to the verses cited They teach that a believer must believe certain things, such as malaika. If malaika is translated as controller, fine that fits well with the description given throughout scripture, malaika have authority/control, no problem. Once someone says ?No those descriptions are all allegorical because malaika/controllers really means natural laws/equations?, then people are just conjecturing and anyone can have their opinion of what controllers really means. If we don?t accept the descriptions of malaika as literal in the scripture, then this category, that believers need to believe in, is anyone?s guess and there?s no way of saying if anyone?s right or wrong. Do you see what I?m saying?
I think there?s a misunderstanding here, we are talking about the use of language. My position is that malaika is being used by some in a figurative way because it does not actually mean ?equations/natural laws?. ?Controllers? does not mean ?natural laws? either, to say that it does is conjecture, and this is not something we should be doing when it comes to scripture.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with your methodology. I agree that anything and everything cannot be interpreted as allegorical. But, how do you choose? As far as I am aware, the quran does not lay out an explicit criterion for discerning between what is and is not allegory. I presume that we are to use our common sense/logic/etc. When a verse speaks of the moon and stars "prostrating" before Allah, it's safe to say that we are to consider that allegory. Is malaika all that different? Stripping aside the preconceived notion that malaika is a sentient angel creature, and approaching the text with a blank slate, is malaika necessarily that different from the "moon and stars prostrating" example?
Now, you make a distinction. If I am understanding you correctly, you say the malaika example is categorically different because we are to "believe" in them, and you make a leap of faith (no pun intended) in implying that things we are to "believe" in must be literal. But, that's just a pregnant assumption, no? Even putting aside the discussion of whether malaika is literal, for the sake of argument, let's call it 'figurative'. What is wrong with that? Why do you say that you can only "believe" in literal things?
If I believe in the various aspects of malaikat, as described in the quran, (that malaikat 'perform' tasks, etc.), why does it matter whether the malaikat are 'literal' or 'figurative' (to use your words)? What's wrong with having an opinion on the exact nature of these articles of faith? Why does that somehow ruin the state of the belief itself? I do not propose to know God's exact nature, is that so wrong? When God speaks allegorically about sitting on his arsh (throne), is my belief ruined because I interpret that as allegory and not a literal chair?
I guess this is our main difference. Where you see a giant issue, I simply don't. Malaika can be sentient angel creatures, or they can be 'controllers', and I would be perfectly fine either way. I'm not wedded to one idea over another. Either one can be true, and it wouldn't make much difference to me in the grand scheme of things. I still believe in this concept of something God created 'controlling' and 'performing various tasks'. Doesn't make much difference to me how that concept is exactly manifest.
Yes but ?controllers? also ?perfectly encapsulates? other ideas. See, Just more speculation. Meanwhile people who read the scripture need to know what it is they need to believe in. If someone says malaika are NOT angels, then the person who reads it as such, believes in a falsehood. The quran using allegories is not the discussion however. The discussion is on the verses mentioned in my previous posts and how the categories therein are to be understood literally, except (according to some) for malaika. Remember we are discussing the use of language in those above mentioned verses, and whether it should be taken as it is written, or whether there is some occult meaning to which few are privy, yet all are commanded to believe in.
See above re there being a big issue where I don't see one. If someone believes in malaika as angels (or controllers), sure, on one level, their interpretation is false. But, is that such a huge issue? Interpretations of quranic verses are false all the time. No one has a 100% correct interpretation of each verse. We are right now almost certainly believing in many 'falsehoods' with regard to the quran. And that's fine. Our knowledge grows. The important thing is that the core message is there and we believe in the core message. These other ideas, such as the exact nature of the malaika, are peripheral issues, are they not? I am assuming you will likely say it is not a peripheral issue since it is 'an article of faith' but again, so is belief in God and in the Last Day. Must I know the exact nature of God? Is my faith crushed if I don't? Must I know every little detail of what the Last Day entails (some take that as allegory as well)? I would contend no. You can believe in the general core message without having to answer for every single detail, details which reasonable people can disagree on.
You implied in your earlier post that this ?method? was ?righteous?, so wouldn?t it be incumbent upon us to first find out if this method is true or false? That?s why I asked you what YOU meant by ?scientific method?, I know what others say already. Do you believe that all evidence for whether a proposition is truthful or not, must be empirical in nature? Can I go about finding out the truth of something without gathering measurable and observable data, or formulating a hypothesis and testing it? If you answer yes to these questions then that is empiricism and it is epistemologically meaningless. If you answer no, then your notion of ?the scientific method? is different from the common understanding, and that?s all I wished to clarify.
To restate I never said that because people had false understanding that one should abandon anything. If you re read my post you will see that I was attempting to pin down exactly what one is supposed to believe with respect to "malaika". Is it that there are natural laws, in general? Or is it the belief in specific truths/equations as natural laws? In that context, I said that the latter option was nonsensical because our understanding of "true" natural laws has changed and been corrected. The former option did not work, in my opinion, because of the definite article in front of malaika. Now I believe you said earlier that it meant the "system" or "scientific method", which I don't think is valid either because of "malaika" being plural in those verses I cited.
Peace.
I may have misspoken. To my knowledge, I never said the scientific method was 'righteous.' It was an analogy. The analogy being one's understanding of the application of a method (i.e. the knowledge attained by the method) changing (e.g. earth being flat) doesn't mean the method itself is false. We can say it's a weak analogy, that's fine. The general point is this there is nothing inherently 'bad' about evolving one's understanding of malaika (or anything else, for that matter). The fact that you can come to understand a concept differently doesn't mean that you are any less of a believer.
These are articles of faith after all. We take it on faith that malaika exist. Done. That's our belief. Step one. What we are now (meaning, me and you) doing is discussing the nature of the malaika. We can disagree on the nature. One (or both) of us has an imperfect interpretation of the concept. That's fine. Step one is still there. The article of faith that me and you both share, our belief in 'malaika' is still there. That is untouched.
Peace.
-
Now that we have dismissed Parwez and Shabbir, let us check what Asad has to say about 'malaika'? Does he confuse them with forces of nature?
46 I.e., "it was only your own fancies and desires that you worshipped, clothing them in the garb of extraneous beings" in other words, the worship of idols, forces of nature, saints, prophets, angels, etc., is shown here to be nothing but a projection of the worshipper's own subconscious desires.
Quite clearly, he doesn't confuse forces of nature with angels.
So what does he call them? 'Spiritual forces or beings' belonging to AlGhayb and not 'forces of nature' or 'laws' or 'equations'
As regards belief in angels, it is postulated here because it is through these spiritual beings or force's (belonging to the realm of al-ghayb, i.e., the reality which is beyond the reach of human perception) that God reveals His will to the prophets and, thus, to mankind at large.
Angelic beings
63 I.e., to attribute divine or semi-divine powers to them a categorical rejection of the adoration of saints and angelic beings.
Rational beings like humans
The Qur'an argues against this idolatrous concept by pointing out that all rational beings, whether men or angels, "belong to God" (i.e., are - like everything else in the universe - wholly dependent on Him for their existence), possessing no divine qualities and, therefore, no reality as objects of worship
Conclusion of Asad?
-
Salam..
Yes.. A wonderful verse.. And good conversation.. I read page 1 and 2 though. .My point in this verse is grammar...
Why the M L K in verse 6917 necessarily be AngelS... While if I am not complicated with what I know of... Malak malakain and malaika they are 1, 2 and 3 or more.. Is it? But the word here is perhaps singular..
If it is one malak then how can the singular malak be in the edges of Heaven.. That's bit bizarre.. Further.. How can Angels be called Yahmilu (it is singular) .. And what about fa'khum (above them) ..above whom? If only one malak then why above them?..So... What if this word malak in this verse refer something else like sovereign etc.. This arj'aiHa refers to heaven's borders..
I feel this verse is totally different to whatis translated... I feel like.. On thatvday heaven will split asunder... Earth will become spread out without any crookedness.. The canopy of heaven is no more... And the sovereignity is ib Upto edges.. So Arsh of Allah is visible... And that day instead of 7 it will be 8 ..coz Arsh is the one we see above us... Whatever.. God knows.. But.. Anyone who is good Arabic.. Explain the grammar here.. Comparing each words...
