Decoding 69:17

Mazhar

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.

thegod

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.

Wakas

@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.

thegod

I agree that you could have been clearer. All the same, there are people who do worship elements

Talking of Asad, he does not seem to confuse forces of nature with angelic beings any more than he does the prophets (1028; 380).

Alen

Peace everyone
would anyone shed some light on the following verse

Khalifa
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.

Hoppean

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.

CavemanDoctor

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&#039 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.

Hoppean

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&#039 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.

CavemanDoctor

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.

thegod

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?

jkhan

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...