Contradiction in 22:18?
-
peace,
2218 - Have you not seen the inhabitants of the skies, and the earth; the sun, the moon, and the stars; the mountains, the trees and the animals serving to Allah? And in men, the torment is decreed to many. And whoever Allah disgraces, none to honour him. Surely, Allah accomplish his will.
translated from Tamil Quran (by Dr Fazlur Rahman)
peace
-
Wakas - thanks for the additional info re Zamakhshari and Razi
Hizbulah - my apologies, I did not notice until now that the last translation you provided did break the verse apart into a structure similar to Asad's
If you read the 2218
Do you not see that ALLAH, he that prostrates to HIM, those in the heavens and those on the earth and the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees, the moving creatures. And many of the people. And many truly on him the punishment.....
Arman - thanks for "hanging in there" with me ; )
First, I am in awe at how you were able to cite a specific verse that has, as you call it, and as an aside am wondering how you were able to do so... do you have a list of verses that you find do not conform to "textbook grammar"? Or some other method that allowed you to cite this verse to support your explanation? What made you think of 447 for your response?
I am in some ways obviously far behind you in my level of understanding and analysis.
See how the verse starts with 2nd person plural and then transitions to 3rd parson plural. By textbook grammar ? this is simply wrong. But if we ponder why the author of Qur?an took the liberty to breach the grammar rule ? we can get deeper insight. For me, the reason of transitioning to 3rd person is to imply that ? if you do not have faith in what God sent down ? then you lose the moral right to be called by second person by God.
Very interesting! Do you know if such a use of grammar occurs in other places within the Quran indicating "you lose the moral right to be called by second person by God"? I seem to recall something maybe similar regarding Iblis/Satan.
In any event, I have no qualms about "looking past the grammar" if I can find some sense in . You have provided an explanation for 447 that, upon first glance, makes sense... and I require such an explanation if I am to maintain my current belief that God is neither arbitrary nor inconsistent.
I am still in search for an explanation that makes sense to me for 2218; or a confirmation that there is a grammatical basis which supports Asad and Haleem's translations
Asad
ART THOU NOT aware that before God prostrate themselves all that are in the heavens and all that are on earth the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the mountains, and the trees, and the beasts? And many human beings , whereas many will inevitably have to suffer ; and he whom God shall scorn will have none who could bestow honour on him for, verily, God does what He wills.Haleem
Do you not realize that everything in the heavens and earth submits to God the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees, and the animals? So do many human beings, though for many others punishment is well deserved. Anyone disgraced by God will have no one to honour him God does whatever He will.red note how this is broken into two sentences, which to me allows a differentiation between those referred to in the first sentence and those in the second.
Example of common translation
Monotheist Group
Did you not see that to God submit what is in the heavens and what is in the Earth, and the sun and the moon and the stars and the mountains and the trees and what moves, and many of mankind, and many who have deserved the retribution. And whoever God disgraces, then none can honour him. God does what He pleases.red note how the phrase continues which to me suggests no differentiation between what was listed before and after the red "and".
-
DrGm - thanks; I have not seen this translation
Hizbullah thanks for your post. I am in agreement with most of what you wrote, but have a comment about the following
To be explicit, the sentence begins with
- of those in the heavens and earth, who worship ALLAH
Hmmm... my understanding is that the sentence begins with which to me suggests ALL; it seems to me you are suggesting that the sentence is referring to a subset of ALL, namely, only those who worship God?
-
peace,
DrGm - thanks; I have not seen this translation
please, is this translation clear.
Hmmm... my understanding is that the sentence begins with which to me suggests ALL; it seems to me you are suggesting that the sentence is referring to a subset of ALL, namely, only those who worship God?
'whoever' doesn't include human. you consider all of Allah's creations and human alike. but quran confers human above all the creations. so it is mentioned in this verse ".. And in men, the torment is decreed to many..." men separated, not included in the rest of the creations. all creations (from skies above and earth below and in between) know the power of their Creator, so they bow; many men (except a few) defy their Creator by their pride so their torment is decreed. we do not know how much is many? and how much is few? Allah knows.
peace
-
my understanding is that the sentence begins with which to me suggests ALL;
Yes you are right
it seems to me you are suggesting that the sentence is referring to a subset of ALL, namely, only those who worship God?
And you are right again, structurally, I will divide the verse into 3 sections...
- Do you not see that to ALLAH, he who prostrates to HIM, whoever in the heavens and whoever in the earth AND
It is referring to ALL, mankind, jinn, birds, land and sea animals.
- the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees, the moving creatures.
It is referring to Mankind and Jinn - both of these creatures were given the faculties of intelligence, eyesight and hearing and a compulsion to worship ALLAH, as per the verse 5156
And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship ME.
Further
"O ye assembly of JINNS and MANKIND! came there not UNTO you MESSENGERS FROM AMONGST YOU, setting forth unto you MY Signs, and warning you of the meeting of this Day of yours?" They will say "We bear witness against ourselves." It was the life of this world that deceived them. So against themselves will they bear witness that they rejected Faith. AQ; 6130
- AND MAJORITY of MANKIND and MAJORITY JUSTIFIED ON HIM the punishment.
Simply means - MANKIND are worst among their species and among Jinn in invoking ALLAH with others.
Peace
-
please, is this translation clear.
If you are asking if I understand the translation, then yes
'whoever' doesn't include human.
How did you arrive at your conclusion? Does that mean you believe 1315 is not referring to humans either? Jinns? I guess this means you are in disagreement with my original post when I say
The beginning part of the verse seems to include ALL humans and jinns (am I not correct in my understanding that is indicative of living and intelligent beings?).
What do you think of Prostration to Allah, Sujud?
I'm afraid I do not yet have a defensible position on the meaning of sujud; however, whatever it means, it seems clear that have no choice but to do so, as Wakas pointed out re 1315 and Armanaziz explained in one his responses above re involuntary.
My current belief is that all of God's creation -- in other words, all matter (i.e. think physics) -- sujud to God.
- Do you not see that to ALLAH, he who prostrates to HIM, whoever in the heavens and whoever in the earth AND
It is referring to ALL, mankind, jinn, birds, land and sea animals.
How have you arrived at your conclusion that ALL includes "birds, land and sea animals"?
- the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees, the moving creatures.
Hmmm... I wasn't perfectly clear on your response, but it led me to see (for further examination) a different possible meaning of this verse
[Do not you see that (to) God (there is no choice but to) submit(?) whoever (is) in the heavens and whoever (is) in the earth, (yet do you not also see that they willingly submit(?) themselves to just about anything else, such as) the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees, the animals, and many (other) human beings?
And (so,) has become due the punishment on many (of whoever is in the heavens and whoever is in the earth... i.e. those who willingly submit(?) to other than God).
Note I haven't yet done ANY validation on whether there is any basis whatsoever to support such a meaning... it's just something that popped into my head which I plan to examine.
Any evidence to invalidate such a meaning is most welcome, and I would prefer if posters can identify their skill level of the Arabic language.
-
I didn't even realise Asad split the sentence. My point was it seems it can work as one sentence, because there are two subsets of SJD willingly and unwillingly.
The first usage in 2218 could be a reference to the default nature of mankind (i.e. they SJD regardless of whether they acknowledge it or not, i.e. unwillingly) - hence the examples that follow - and the second usage could be a reference to the willing/concious SJD.
I would still be interested however in seeing what the theoretical possibilities are from those knowledgeable of Arabic.
-
peace,
How did you arrive at your conclusion?
i'm wrong.
Since the list in my example began with "All of mankind", then the only sense I can make of the "Some of mankind" at the end of the list is that it is a contradiction.
my reference was only to address there is no contradiction in the verse 2218. God says, 'have you not see all serve me'. then He warns, 'many in humans do not' as He is the Knower of hearts. we can not see what is in humans heart, but God can.
peace
-
Often the grammar seems poor because the understanding is wrong, cut between verses or the words are not interpreted as to what they mean.
Have faith
-
Salam,
No contradiction.
The word "man" does not encompass "all". To do that, it would need the prefix "kul" (see 1993 for clarification).
Regards,
It is still vague. If it does not encompass "all" for not being the second noun of possessive phrase with "kul-u", it neither denotes "some".
It is a relative pronoun, thereby, means "whoever". It also needs a linkage clause to define who is referred by "whoever".
In context it is also General Relative pronoun for referring singular, dual, plural, masculine, feminine.
It is also condition noun.
"Kulo Man" does not denote "all". It signifies everyone. -
May peace be with you--
I?ve been pondering an apparent conflict in 2218 (verse in Arabic at bottom) and was interested in any thoughts/Arabic resources any of you Arabic speakers might yourselves have access to that could help me better understand the meaning of this verse (sadly, so many resources are inaccessible to me since they are in Arabic?)
The beginning part of the verse seems to include ALL humans and jinns (am I not correct in my understanding that is indicative of living and intelligent beings?). But then, the almost universal translation (50 that I?ve examined) end the list of that which to God with .
That seems contradictory
vs.
Thanks for any assistance-
Critical and logical thinking an enquiry based process and pursuit linking background information given before to determine cohesion and coherence is not only the advised mode of reading and comprehending Grand Qur'aan, but is also an evaluation criterion to assess the accuracy of translations and exegeses. Presence of contradictions and conflicting statements in the target language text will render that work as faulty and inaccurate.
(iv) Critical thinking Follow an enquiry based process use prior and background information Inbuilt criteria for evaluation of translationsIt is a compund sentence with multiple subjects of same verb.
In the first sentence the subject of the verb is a Relative Pronoun whose linkage clause is elided as it is manifestly understood by the following prepositional phrase. It is a general information.
With conjunct the other sentence shows specific definite entities who are the subject of the same verb.Here please note the word is in nominative case but is indefinite. If we take it as conjunct to the preceding sentence as another Subject of the verb, we will need its specification by an adjectival clause which is elided.
If we take it as a seprate recomencing sentence, we will have to estimate its elided predicate.
Man surrenders either affectionately and/or by compulsion of circumstances. Therefore, whether we take it as conjunct sentence or an independent new sentence we need to estimate either its adjective or predicate. We are already told about this earlierhttp//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/013.%20Ar%20Raad/13.15.gif
Be aware; He who is living-exists in the Skies and the Earth submits humbly in surrender; and will acknowledge and submit humbly in surrender for Allah the Exalted; in the states arising on willful acceptance-acknowledgement with reverence, and under compulsion of coercive circumstances.
However, their shadows make themselves in prostrate posture for Allah the Exalted, at occasion of the mornings and the evenings. -
Mazhar - Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
In summary, you seem to be confirming that an interpretation as a separate and distinct sentence with an elided predicate is not in breach of grammar or some other rule?
When reading your response, I feel like the second grade student trying to understand the University professor's lecture, so I hope you might bear with me and "dumb it down" a bit ; )
It is a compund sentence with multiple subjects of same verb.
It seems to me you believe the last word of the first sentence to be (ُ, correct? If so, how do you know it to be the last word of the sentence?
In the first sentence the subject of the verb is a Relative Pronoun whose linkage clause is elided as it is manifestly understood by the following prepositional phrase.
Verb | yasjudu | prostrates/submits
Subject of the verb | man | whoever (= relative pronoun)
Prepositional phrase(s) in the heavens / in the earth
Additional subjects of the verb the sun... the moving creatures ( )Question What "linking clause" is elided? Maybe that will become clear to me if you can point out which phrase you mean by "the following prepositional phrase"
With conjunct the other sentence shows specific definite entities who are the subject of the same verb.
By this, you mean "If we take it as conjunct to the preceding sentence as another Subject of the verb"?
Here please note the word is in nominative case but is indefinite. If we take it as conjunct to the preceding sentence as another Subject of the verb, we will need its specification by an adjectival clause which is elided.
Can you please clarify? As conjunct, wouldn't the meaning be ? As another subject of the verb, I object to this, because I find it conflicts with the subject which I understand to be all inclusive; in other words, I understand to be a subset of . By "conflicts", I mean that since was already listed as one of the subjects of the verb, that to, in addition, list a subset, i.e. , seems redundant and odd and in demand of an explanation for the redundancy.
If we take it as a seprate recomencing sentence, we will have to estimate its elided predicate.
The "conflict" I find leads me to believe this to be the case. It then would make sense to me that the first sentence is describing sujud as something that all (which includes everyone) are subject to.
And now the second sentence requires, as you put it, an estimation of the elided predicate.
As you pointed out, "Man surrenders either affectionately and/or by compulsion of circumstances."
Wakas' reference re consciously vs. unconsciously seems to make sense to me (which is also Muhammad Asad's interpretation in his note 33 for 221.
Two "estimations of the elided predicate" come to my mind for the second sentence
- , or
The first one makes more sense to me because of the following
Third sentence
2219
Since 2219 is referencing two opponents, I suspect this is referring toopponent 1)
opponent 2) (because he is one of
the who sujud unconsciously -- i.e. he is not God conscious / not a believer / etc...)I'm mostly in agreement with Wakas
I didn't even realise Asad split the sentence. My point was it seems it can work as one sentence, because there are two subsets of SJD willingly and unwillingly.
The first usage in 2218 could be a reference to the default nature of mankind (i.e. they SJD regardless of whether they acknowledge it or not, i.e. unwillingly) - hence the examples that follow - and the second usage could be a reference to the willing/concious SJD.
My only objection is that I have difficulty agreeing that "it can work as one sentence" because of
- the redundancy/oddness of vs. , and
- if the point being made is to differentiate two different aspects of sujud (all are subject to it vs. many are consciously aware that all are subject to it), then I see TWO predicates (underlined below) which to me require two sentences to differentiate between
- Whoever + sun + ... sujud (whether they know it or not)
- Many sujud (knowingly)
- I think it needs to be a separate sentence so that 2219 works (unless someone can suggest an alternate understanding of which two opponents are being referenced)
Which gets back to one of my sticking points
Mazhar, you seem to be confirming that an interpretation as a separate and distinct sentence with an elided predicate is not in breach of grammar or some other rule?God, how can I spend so many hours on one seemingly little thing... -[
-
It seems to me you believe the last word of the first sentence to be (ُ, correct? If so, how do you know it to be the last word of the sentence?
Subject of a verb is always definite or is a specified noun. Relative pronoun and all noun up this noun are definite, conjoined by Waw.
After this we find an indefinite noun with tanween in nominative case. The subject of a verb is always in nominative case; similarly a subject of nominal sentence is always in nominative case. Therefore, this is a new sentence.
-
Question What "linking clause" is elided? Maybe that will become clear to me if you can point out which phrase you mean by "the following prepositional phrase"
It is not professor level grammar. It is basic grammar. In English and Arabic also all relative pronouns need linkage clause. Because of prepositonal phrase with "Fe" it is understood whoever is living-exists within------
-
Quote
With conjunct the other sentence shows specific definite entities who are the subject of the same verb.By this, you mean "If we take it as conjunct to the preceding sentence as another Subject of the verb"?
Yes, we can take it as subject of the verb subject to the condition that its specification is elided. It is also basic grammar that the subject of a verb is a definite or specified noun.
-
Here please note the word is in nominative case but is indefinite. If we take it as conjunct to the preceding sentence as another Subject of the verb, we will need its specification by an adjectival clause which is elided.
Can you please clarify? As conjunct, wouldn't the meaning be ? As another subject of the verb, I object to this, because I find it conflicts with the subject which I understand to be all inclusive; in other words, I understand to be a subset of . By "conflicts", I mean that since was already listed as one of the subjects of the verb, that to, in addition, list a subset, i.e. , seems redundant and odd and in demand of an explanation for the redundancy.
? This is the meanings of individual words assembled as a sentence in English. But semantics is not all this. "Many for ", which in English is adjective and pronoun-a grammatical word referring to a considerable number of people or things, cannot alone be taken as the subject of verb.
-
Quote
If we take it as a seprate recomencing sentence, we will have to estimate its elided predicate.The "conflict" I find leads me to believe this to be the case. It then would make sense to me that the first sentence is describing sujud as something that all (which includes everyone) are subject to.
And now the second sentence requires, as you put it, an estimation of the elided predicate.
As you pointed out, "Man surrenders either affectionately and/or by compulsion of circumstances."
Wakas' reference re consciously vs. unconsciously seems to make sense to me (which is also Muhammad Asad's interpretation in his note 33 for 221.
Two "estimations of the elided predicate" come to my mind for the second sentence
- , or
The first one makes more sense to me because of the following
Third sentence
2219
Since 2219 is referencing two opponents, I suspect this is referring toopponent 1)
opponent 2) (because he is one of
the who sujud unconsciously -- i.e. he is not God conscious / not a believer / etc...)I'm mostly in agreement with Wakas
Red part describes the manner or circumstance in which the action takes place. An imperfect verb in Indicative mood does not denote "unconscious" element in it. Imperfect covers the present moment as well coming moments in timeline. Mohammad Asad overlooked the mood of verb. They even naively overlooked that action is always conscious.
