INQUIRY
-
According to The Qur?an, in The Hereafter our physiological/biological build up is going to be quite different from this worldly, Earthly one.
Peace everyone,
I agree with the above statement; according to the great reading, paradise (frds) is a place where the righteous will be happy/blissful at the end time (yawm al-akhir). The bliss/happiness to experience there is not something we can imagine. So, if you imagine having the most stunningly beautiful spouse (inside and out) in paradise, think again. It's not anything we can fathom
3217 No person knows what is hidden for them of bliss/happiness as a reward for what they used to work.
Peace,
-David
-
If we are going to be re-created down to our fingertips, would the sexual organs, that having to do with sexuality etc not be present then? Will we be re-created as spayed cats so to say? And if there is no sexuality present what is the purpose of mentioning spouses/partners? Why can't we all just mingle without this spouse/partner stuff?
I agree that we really can't know for sure, but we do have some allegorical verses that we may use to give us a rough estimation of what we are to expect generally. That's the point of giving an incentive, you kinda somewhat let 'em in on what to expect even if it's just somewhere around the ballpark.
-
I guess if you're married and want to spend eternity with your spouse, this will be the case
Peace Leyna,
My understanding is that we return to the god all alone, as individuals for judgement. Then, we join the righteous of our worldly friends and family, but instead of maintaining those worldly relationships, we will be one family in a different sense altogether. I believe it will be totally different from what we can imagine because of 3217.
1980 He came to us alone.
1323 They entered the gardens of "eden", as did the righteous of their parents, their spouses and their offspring.
1547 We removed all bad feelings from their chests. They are siblings, oriented towards one another.
3217 No person knows what is hidden for them of bliss/happiness as a reward for what they used to work.
The following clips present a funny joke about this, but I think there's a lesson behind the joke. The background is that Larry David and his wife are going to renew their vows, but Larry has a problem with the concept of "eternal marriage".
- http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsQpWHEYEMU
- http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg_YZcUwyc
Spoiler isn't it funny how the Rabbi basically denies the ontological reality of the ending (akhirah) and then shouts, "Jesus!" during their glass-smashing ritual? ;D
Peace,
-David
-
If we are going to be re-created down to our fingertips
Peace Nadia,
The god says that he is able to do this, not that he will do this
754 Indeed, we are able to remake his fingertips
It is a response to the previous question does the human think the god can't gather his bones? The god responds by saying that he has the ability to remake even his fingertips, but not that he necessarily will do this.
Peace,
-David
-
AND I want time with all the prophets, and pythagorus and plato and newton and einstein and all the other great minds I cant think of the names of! '( Now THAT would be heaven to me
Peace Ayisha,
I know how you feel. For sure, the prophets will be there. But are we sure that Pythagoras, Plato, Newton and Einstein have a place in the god's paradise? Maybe they didn't make it; it's not so easy. In truth, when I think of this matter deeply I'm much more excited to meat the greatest mind of all - that of the almighty - who created the natural world that men and women have studied.
Peace,
-David
-
Sure I understand that, I was kinda appalled at the spayed cat notion. It's more than slightly disturbing. So, I take it the pure spouses/partners mentioned are... really pure as in untouchable? Way to go guys, women are oppressed on this earth and later on, we get our sexuality taken away and are presented with pure spouses we can't touch. I'm going to go sulk now.
Peace
-
Sure I understand that, I was kinda appalled at the spayed cat notion. It's more than slightly disturbing. So, I take it the pure spouses/partners mentioned are... really pure as in untouchable? Way to go guys, women are oppressed on this earth and later on, we get our sexuality taken away and are presented with pure spouses we can't touch. I'm going to go sulk now.
Peace
Peace Nadia,
The spayed cat notion is indeed quite disturbing! Have you ever imagined not having a body at all? All throughout the great reading the god tells us, men and women, that we will have "hur" that are wondrous. Now, if we look at different derivatives from the same root, like 1834 and 581, it would seem that the word is related to conversations, which move back and forth. Is there anything more satisfying than having an intelligent, like-minded, free-minded friend?
So, if we consider the fact that we cannot fathom the god's paradise, I wouldn't imagine bodies at all. Besides, if your sexual drive (irbah) isn't re-created, you won't miss it.
-
Peace David,
I've always wondered how the Cheshire cat felt, now it appears I'll be experiencing it, I need time for this to sink in. We often debate on rpg boards the necessity of being saddled with forced companions, my question still remains though. If we have the whole siblinghood of humanity that made it for mingling/conversations etc, why the need for a particular friend/partner/spouse etc? Can't we pick and choose our conversation companions? What is the significance of a special friend?
If I still retain my memory, then I'll sure as heck miss it!
-
If I still retain my memory, then I'll sure as heck miss it!
Peace Nadia,
Per 3217, isn't it a fact that the bliss/happiness/joy of the god's paradise is better than sex? Muhammad Asad wrote a pretty good article on how our minds can't imagine the bliss of the end time
Symbolism and Allegory In The Qur'an
Muhammad AsadWhen studying the Quran, one frequently encounters what may be described as "key - phrases" - that is to say, statements which provide a clear, concise indication of the idea underlying a particular passage or passages for instance, the many references to the creation of man "out of dust" and "out of a drop of sperm", pointing to the lowly biological origin of the human species; or the statement in the ninety-ninth surah (Az-Zalzalah) that on Resurrection Day "he who shall have done an atom's weight of good, shall behold it; and he who shall have done an atom's weight of evil, shall behold it" - indicating the inelucctible afterlife consequences of, and the responsibility for, all that man consciously does in this world; or the divine declaration (in 3827),
"We have not created heaven and earth and all that is between them without meaning and purpose (baatilan), as is the surmise of those who are bent on denying the truth."
Instances of such Quranic key-phrases can be quoted almost ad infinitum, and in many varying formulations. But there is one fundamental statement in the Quran which occurs only once, and which may be qualified as "the key-phrase of all its key-phrases" the statement in verse 37 to the effect that the Quran "contains messages that are clear in and by themselves (ayat-e-muhkamaat) as well as others that are allegorical (mutashabihaat)". It is this verse which represents, in an absolute sense, a key to the understanding of the Qur'anic message and makes the whole of it accessible to "people who think" (li-qawmin yatafakkarUn).
In my notes on the above-mentioned verse I have tried to elucidate the meaning of the expression ayaat muhkimaat as well as the general purport of what is termed mutashabih ("allegorical" or "symbolic". Without a proper grasp of what is implied by this latter term, much of the Qur~an is liable to be - and, in fact, has often been - grossly misunderstood both by believers and by such as refuse to believe in its divinely-inspired origin. However, an appreciation of what is meant by "allegory" or "symbolism" in the context of the Quran is, by itself, not enough to make one fully understand its world-view in order to achieve this we must relate the Quranic use of these terms to a concept touched upon almost at the very beginning of the divine writ - namely, the existence of "a realm which is beyond the reach of human perception" (aI-ghayb). It is this concept that constitutes the basic premise for an understanding of the call of the Quran, and, indeed, of the principle of religion - every religion - as such for all truly religious cognition arises from and is based on the fact that only a small segment of reality is open to man's perception and imagination, and that by far the larger part of it escapes his comprehension altogether.
However, side by side with this clear-cut metaphysical concept we have a not less clear-cut finding of a psychological nature namely, the finding that the human mind (in which term we comprise conscious thinking, imagination, dream-life, intuition, memory, etc.) can operate only on the basis of perceptions previously experienced by that very mind either in their entirety or in some of their constituent elements that is to say, it cannot visualize, or form an idea of, something that lies entirely outside the realm of previously realized experiences. Hence, whenever we arrive at a seemingly "new" mental image or idea, we find, on closer examination, that even if it is new as a composite entity, it is not really new as regards its component elements, for these are invariably derived from previous - and sometimes quite disparate - mental experiences which are now but brought together in a new combination or series of new combinations.
Now as soon as we realize that the human mind cannot operate otherwise than on the basis of previous experiences - that is to say, on the basis of apperceptions and cognitions already recorded in that mind - we are faced by a weighty question Since the metaphysical ideas of religion relate, by virtue of their nature, to a realm beyond the reach of human perception or experience - how can they be successfully conveyed too us? How can we he expected to grasp ideas which have no counterpart, not even a fractional one, in any of the apperceptions which we have arrived at empirically?
The answer is self-evident By means of loan-images derived from our actual - physical or mental - experiences; or, as Zamakhshari phrases it in his commentary on 1335, "through a parabolic illustration, by means of something which we know from our experience, of something that is beyond the reach of our perception" (tamtheelan li-ma ghaaba anna bi-ma nushaahid). And this is the innermost purport of the term and concept of al-mutashaabihaat as used in the Quran.
Thus, the Qur~an tells us clearly that many of its passages and expressions must be understood in an allegorical sense for the simple reason that, being intended for human understanding, they could not have been conveyed to us in any other way.. It follows, therefore, that if we were to take every Quranic passage, statement or expression in its outward, literal sense and disregard the possibility of its being an allegory, a metaphor or a parable, we would be offending against the very spirit of the divine writ.
Consider, for instance, some of the Quranic references to God's Being - Being indefinable, infinite in time and space, and utterly beyond any creature's comprehension. Far from being able to imagine Him, we can only realize what He is not namely, not limited in either time or space, not definable in terms of comparison, and not to be comprised within any category of human thought. Hence, only very generalized metaphors can convey to us, though most inadequately, the idea of His existence and activity.
And so, when the Quran speaks of Him as being "in the heavens" or "established on His throne (al-arsh)", we cannot possibly take these phrases in their literal senses, since then they would imply, however vaguely, that God is limited in space and since such a limitation would contradict the concept of an Infinite Being, we know immediately, without the least doubt that the "heavens" and the "throne" and God's being "established" on it are but linguistic vehicles meant to convey an idea which is outside all human experience, namely, the idea of God's almightiness and absolute sway over all that exists. Similarly, whenever He is described as "all-seeing", "all-hearing" or "all-aware", we know that these descriptions have nothing to do with the phenomena of physical seeing or hearing hut simply circumscribe, in terms understandable to man, the fact of God's eternal Presence in all that is or happens. And since "no human vision can encompass Him" (Quran 6103), man is not expected to realize His existence otherwise than through observing the effects of His unceasing activity within and upon the universe created by Him.
But whereas our belief in God's existence does not - and, indeed, could not - depend on our grasping the unfathomable "how" of His Being, the same is not the case with problems connected with man's own existence, and, in particular, with the idea of a life in the hereafter for, man's psyche is so constituted that it cannot accept any proposition relating to himself without being given a clear exposition of its purport.
The Quran tells us that man's life in this world is but the first stage - a very short stage - of a life that continues beyond the hiatus called "death" ; and the same Quran stresses again and again the principle of man's moral responsibility for all his conscious actions and his behaviour, and of the continuation of this responsibility, in the shape of inescapable consequences, good or bad, in a person's life in the hereafter. But how could man be made to understand the nature of these consequences and, thus, of the quality of the life that awaits him'? - for, obviously, inasmuch as man's resurrection will be the result of what the Quran describes as "a new act of creation", the life that will follow upon it must be entirely different from anything that man can and does experience in this world.
This being so, it is not enough for man to be told, "If you behave righteously in this world, you will attain to happiness in the life to come" , or, alternatively, "If you do wrong in this world, you will suffer for it in the hereafter". Such statements would be far too general and abstract to appeal to man's imagination and, thus, to influence his behaviour. What is needed is a more direct appeal to the intellect, resulting in a kind of "visualization" of the consequences of one's conscious acts and omissions and such an appeal can be effectively produced by means of metaphors, allegories and parables, each of them stressing, on the one hand, the absolute dissimilarity of all that man will experience after resurrection from whatever he did or could experience in this world; and, on the other hand, establishing means of comparison between these two categories of experience.
Thus, explaining the reference to the bliss of paradise in 3217, the Prophet indicated the essential difference between man's life in this world and in the hereafter in these words "God says, 'I have readied for My righteous servants what no eye has ever seen, and no ear has ever heard, and no heart of man has ever conceived"' (Bukh?ri, Muslim, Tirmidhi). On the other hand, in 225 the Quran speaks thus of the blessed in paradise
"Whenever they are granted fruits therefrom as their appointed sustenance, they will say, 'It is this that in days of yore was granted to us as our sustenance' - for they shall be given something which will recall that
" and so we have the image of gardens through which running waters flow, blissful shade, spouses of indescribable beauty, and many other delights infinitely varied and unending, and yet somehow comparable to what may be conceived of as most delightful in this world.
However, this possibility of an intellectual comparison between the two stages of human existence is to a large extent limited by the fact that all our thinking and imagining is indissolubly connected with the concepts of finite time and finite space in other words, we cannot imagine infinity in either time or space - and therefore cannot imagine a state of existence independent of time and space - or, as the Qur'~n phrases it with reference to a state of happiness in afterlife, "a paradise as vast as the heavens and the earth" (3133) which expression is the Qur'anic synonym for the entire created universe. On the other hand, we know that every Qur'anic statement is directed to man's reason and must, therefore, be comprehensible either in its literal sense (as in the case of the dy?t muhkamdt) or allegorically (as in the ayat-e-mutashaabihaat); and since, owing to the constitution of the human mind, neither infinity nor eternity are comprehensible to us, it follows that the reference to the infinite "vastness" of paradise cannot relate to anything but the intensity of sensation which it will offer to the blest.
By obvious analogy, the principle of a "comparison through allegory" applied in the Qur~?n to all references to paradise - i.e., a state of unimaginable happiness in afterlife - must be extended to all descriptions of otherworldly suffering - i.e., hell - in respect of its utter dissimilarity from all earthly experiences as well as its unmeasurable intensity. In both cases the descriptive method of the Qur'?n is the same. We are told, as it
were "Imagine the most joyous sensations, bodily as well as emotional, accessible to man indescribable beauty, love physical and spiritual, conscious ness of fulfilment, perfect peace and harmony; and imagine these sensations intensified beyond anything imaginable in this world - and at the same time entirely different from anything imaginable and you have an inkling, however vague, of what is meant by 'paradise'." And, on the other
hand "Imagine the greatest suffering, bodily as well as spiritual, which man may experience burning by fire, utter loneliness and bitter desolation, the torment of unceasing frustration, a condition of neither living nor dying; and imagine this pain, this darkness and this despair intensified beyond anything imaginable in this world - and at the same time entirely different from anything imaginable and you will know, however vaguely, what is meant by 'hell'."
Side by side with these allegories relating to man's life after death we find in the Qur'?n many symbolical expressions referring to the evidence of God's activity. Owing to the limitations of human language - which, in their turn, arise from the inborn limitations of the human mind - this activity can only be circumscribed and never really described. Just as it is impossible for us to imagine or define God's Being, so the true nature of His creativeness - and, therefore, of His plan of creation - must remain beyond our grasp. But since the Quran aims at conveying to us an ethical teaching based, precisely, on the concept of God's purposeful creativeness, the latter must be, as it were, "translated" into categories of thought accessible to man. Hence the use of expressions which at first sight have an almost anthropomorphic hue, for instance, God's "wrath" (ghadab) or "condemnation"; His "pleasure" at good deeds or "love" for His creatures; or His being "oblivious" of a sinner who was oblivious of Him; or "asking" a wrongdoer on Resurrection Day about his wrongdoing; and so forth. All such verbal "translations" of God's activity into human terminology are unavoidable as long as we are expected to conform to ethical principles revealed to us by means of a human language; but there can be no greater mistake than to think that these "translations" could ever enable us to define the Undefinable.
And, as the Quran makes it clear in the seventh verse 37, only
"those whose hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of the divine writ which has been expressed in allegory, seeking out confusion, and seeking its final meaning but none save God knows its final meaning."
-
Peace David,
Thanks for posting.
3217 No person knows what is being hidden for them of joy, as a reward for what they used to do.
It means we don't know, it could be anything, we just don't know/can't imagine and so on. I agree with you we don't know/can't imagine the bliss! I don't particularly care if there is mindblowing sex involved, or mindblowing intellectual discourses or both/neither or more, which I've never even imagined/experienced let alone seen the likes of. For me, if God says I'll be happy...I'm sure I will be. What I was bringing up were certain questions that came up after reading the posts, thinking about the scenario that was brought up, is all.
I can understand some people do not see sex/sexuality etc present in the hereafter. There are some that believe we will be at peace, neither happy nor sad and that is the bliss talked about. I'm just weighing the options here
-
True peace is an incredible thing, most people will never understand. It is mindblowing beyond measure, indeed there is no such thing as "measure" when there is complete peace and as such notions of "measure" are transcended.
Eternity is a state which is at complete peace, harmony, balance, unity, synchronicity. It is powered by the boundless power and love between forms, the balance lies in the fact that nothing witholds anything from anything else and each individual component gives everything else what it wants and in turn, it recieves what it wants in. Everything is exchanged at exactly the right times and this is what sustains the state of perpetual motion.
"Imagine the most joyous sensations, bodily as well as emotional, accessible to man indescribable beauty, love physical and spiritual, conscious ness of fulfilment, perfect peace and harmony; and imagine these sensations intensified beyond anything imaginable in this world - and at the same time entirely different from anything imaginable and you have an inkling, however vague, of what is meant by 'paradise'."
This is one for a savage carrot to consider
-
Heh, I was sold OPF, and I'm still sold
Well put.
-
peace sister,
I looked at Asad and all the others bro, doesnt help much, and im awake now -\
doesnt answer the question what do women get either
My post was not directed to you specifically. It was for general background info for readers.
As a side note, this issue reminds me of the following clip from The Matrix
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9KkMf1Bt0M -
Peace David
Thanks for the article.
I am reading Asad's translation (the message) nowadays, and i think this translation is one of the best translations i have read.
-
Ironic that Asad is mentioned here, I quote
Asad spoke of Islam thus
"Islam appears to me like a perfect work of architecture. All its parts are harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other; nothing is superfluous and nothing lacking; and the result is a structure of absolute balance and solid composure."
Also
Within the framework of established knowledge of physics and cosmology, our universe could be one of many in a super-universe or multiverse. Linde (1990, 1994) has proposed that a background space-time "foam" empty of matter and radiation will experience local quantum fluctuations in curvature, forming many bubbles of false vacuum that individually inflate into mini-universes with random characteristics. Each universe within the multiverse can have a different set of constants and physical laws. Some might have life of a form different from ours; others might have no life at all or something even more complex or so different that we cannot even imagine it. Obviously we are in one of those universes with life.
Victor J. Stenger -
I just finished reading Asad's autobiography a few days ago. He came from a unique perspective (born into a Jewish family, lived in Europe, well traveled in Muslim countries, journalist/observer, met many leaders, learnt Arabic, spent time with Bedouins, completely emersed himself in the people), hence probably why his translation is so different and one of the best. His main advantage was perhaps he brought the Western "scientific/rational" mind and combined this with the spiritual embrace he found in the East. However, one trait often not discussed that is crucial in order to understand/translate The Quran is the translator's heart the orientation of their inner compass. Examples of this are evident throughout his autobiography.
Of course, no translation is perfect.
-
I guess if you're married and want to spend eternity with your spouse, this will be the case, insha'allah. http//foolstown.com/sm/dan.gif
The handsome boys are for those of us who are not married, like me. There's gotta be fairness, right?
Disclaimer This post is tongue-in-cheek!Peace,
Respectfully.I guess you're right.
Being a 32-year-old virgin, i always imagine a mansion with plenty of ladies .....Peace.
-
Being a 32-year-old virgin, i always imagine a mansion with plenty of ladies .....
Peace Alen,
Exactly - it's what you imagine. However, the god says that only those with blurriness in their hearts seek to know the original meaning of allegories like mansions and spouses. As a guy who remained chaste until marriage, but got married at 20, let me assure you that the god's paradise is a lot better than our earthly reproductive activities. Sometimes we build up sex to be this earth-shattering thing, especially with Hollywood these days.
As per 3217, we truly are mentally unable to imagine the happiness of the end time.
37 He is the one who descended on you the book.
From it are judging signs that are the origin of the book,
and others that are allegorical.
So in the case of
(1) Those in whose hearts there is blurriness, they pursue what is allegorical from it (the book) desiring the "fitnah"/trial/affliction and desiring its (the book's) original interpretation.
And none knows its (the book's) original interpretation except the god. And,
(2) Those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say "We have faith in it (the book), both (types of signs) are from our Lord."
And none remembers other than those with intellectual faculties.So, if I make any definite claims to know the original meaning behind the allegories of the great reading, I'd have to keep myself in check and blame myself for the blurriness in my own heart. Another important reason we must keep our sexual fantasies from interfering with our interpretation of the glorious reading (al-quran al-magid) is that the book is intended for audiences young and old. When we teach children about the signs of the god, we better remind them of 37 so that they too can appreciate the allegories of the book. Naturally, we would not be telling little kids about "mansions full of ladies", especially since monogamy is the normal way of life down here on earth.
Allow me to use one final example the "rivers of intoxicants" mentioned in the wise reading (al-quran al-hakim). They're allegorical, obviously, so we would teach ourselves and our offspring that they're merely a symbol. If we start hyping up intoxicants and equating them with the god's paradise - literally - then our children may want to experiment with drugs in their youth, to "get a taste of paradise", so to speak. I don't have to tell you about how easy it is to get drugs in the UK - it's just as easy where I'm from (Canada) and where I live now (USA).
In brief, there is a real danger in interpreting allegories literally, especially for our youth. If I am lucky enough to have or adopt a child, I don't want him/her craving orgies because I made allegories into literal things for him. Furthermore, I don't want people (virgins) to get a false impression about sex. Mountains will not trans-locate, the skies will not tear apart, and it will not rain for 40 days and 40 nights after your wedding night. Sex is nothing compared to the paradise (frds). I believe the god has prepared for us something beyond our wildest imaginations, and sex will pale in comparison.
Peace,
-David
