Incest
-
crazy thought does anyone here believe that the womb that Prophet Adam developed in was made of earth? or flesh is made of earth and if you look at the bible he was created and then placed (lead to , i assume) in the garden of eden and there where rivers meantioned in all accounts of the cradle of civilization like between the tigiris and euphrates rivers also another two gihon and one more river. this is in the book og Genesis in the bible.
seriously read the first 3 chapters of the book of genesis it explains creation how the earth stage by stage developed in to a livable environment. when it comes to incest in the first humans consider the womb. nothing was made by the hand of god just by his command (rules) the same rules that bring atoms together. most of it is explained by hydrogen bonds. also DNA, the "D" in dna is a sugar, 2-Deoxyi-ribose Nucleic Acid,RNA is Ribose. consider how a baby develops in a womans womb it's almost anaerobic.
simplier even butterflies develop in a womb and that womb is simply some crap coming out of their butts.
ALLAH knows best but the more i read the bible and study biology the more i realise we were all like some sea monkeys you just add water.
better example is the spawning pits from lord of the rings. all we are is in dirt (dust) a collection of scattered particles that come together with hydrogen bonds. ashes to ashes and dust to dust, back from what we came from.back to incest do you think that eve being made out of Prophet Adams rib is like the ultimate incest? like a weird science type thing. so were adam and eve even related except with dna from adam, and then the environment effecting how they "baked" (baked the bones hard and the proteins to flesh) the quote you gave is the same in the book of leviticus, but i think the incest was maybe related to a spawning pit they had more sons than kain and able, the science points to this. the question is were all men from adam and eve? where in the bible (which is a book all muslims must believe in) does it list all the children of adam? didn't he raise them? didn't she breast feed them? and their survival is strongest as a group? so does anyone want to check the science of a spawning pit?
all life on earth is simply spawn or released from it's in environment, the chicken came before the egg, the egg rust contains chicken ingreidents. if you believe and know this from reading a few pages of a biology book then you can agree we human being are hatched from the same (in-cest) or multiple "cest" pools!
*cest does not simply mean filth it's a collect of ingredents that RNA puts together into a life form... or a plant but i didn't study that, the plant part, plants came before humans.
-
Bender, here are some important points to keep in mind.
- Angels do not know except for what the Creator taught them
- Angles somehow knew that humans were going to cause corruption on the earth. Only the Creator could have taught them that knowledge
- Point number two raises another question. How were the angles taught about this destructive dark side humanity before humanity was created?
- Two verses later, Angles remember that they do not know anything except for what the Creator taught them.
The contradiction here is that angels where somehow able to know exactly what humans were going to do on earth but since only their Creator can give them knowledge, it can only mean the Creator told them that. But what exactly were angels told about humans? That they were going to cause corruption on earth or that they were going to be made a "successive authority" on earth?
"And , when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know."(230)
Hi Invalid777,
I understood the contradiction. But in my view the contradiction is not in the quran but in your understanding.
I see that you have translated (or took a translation) were malaikat are translated as angels.
I am not sure about you, but if I see the word angel then I immediately see an image of a creature (with a human face) with white cloths and wings.
And letting this image of malaikat slip into my understanding of the quran brings a lot of contradictions, not only in 230 but in fact in all verses were they are mentioned.
So maybe we have to look for a better image of malaikats.There are gaps here because we aren't exactly told how they knew. The only plausible explanation is that there were intelligent creatures on earth who also caused bloodshed and corruption before the creation of humans. With this experience, angels can now assume that this new intelligent creation(humans) might also cause bloodshed and corruption on earth. Now of course the Creator can remind them that they know nothing except for what their Creator taught them.
"They said, "Be You glorified, we have no knowledge, except that which You have taught us. You are the Omniscient, Most Wise."(232)Blue I can almost feel that you are not satisfied with this only plausible explanation
And btw, there is not a shred of evidence to support the jinn story of them roaming the earth before humans were created. If this is true, what happened to the jinns? Is there any evidence that the jinns became "invisible" to the humans? Do you see how flawed this excuse of the jinn is?
I agree, this make no sense.
What do you think?
I think 230 has all the information we need, no other verses needed.
Salaam,
Bender -
Hi Invalid777,
I understood the contradiction. But in my view the contradiction is not in the quran but in your understanding.
I see that you have translated (or took a translation) were malaikat are translated as angels.
I am not sure about you, but if I see the word angel then I immediately see an image of a creature (with a human face) with white cloths and wings.
And letting this image of malaikat slip into my understanding of the quran brings a lot of contradictions, not only in 230 but in fact in all verses were they are mentioned.
So maybe we have to look for a better image of malaikats.
Blue I can almost feel that you are not satisfied with this only plausible explanationI agree, this make no sense.
I think 230 has all the information we need, no other verses needed.
Salaam,
BenderHello bender you totally disregarded my post.
I highlighted in my long lost abou the Malaika
There are plenty of examples in Quran in which Malaika assume the form of men, it might not be their original form. But they have done it and they are well able to by the permission of Allah.
Abraham had honored guests who appeared to him and did not eat food
Lut received the Meseengers and his people demanded his guests.
God blinded them for their transgression.
A Messenger/Malaika appeared to Mary in her seclusion
One trait that the Maliaka have is to cause apprehension on the behalf of the a Messengers and appear as people unknown.
Abraham was afraid of them, Lut also felt fear or he felt straitened, Mary sought refuge in Allah from the messenger.They spoke and delivered their messages.
They are conscious independent beings.The only contradiction would be to deny this when it is clear that they appeared to people as men.
Show where you see the contradiction in the verses you speak of.
This is a perfect platform for us to study and help one another.
Don't just claim soothing causes contradiction without showing it please.You also overlooked the portion about the Jinn.
In what way would that theory make no sense?
I strongly feel that you need an elaborate argument to make such claim.
You have nothing to counter this very well established theory except for saying it makes no sense?
bravoThis is not how we study Quran folks
Let's use Quran ayyaas in our arguments and analyze each premise. -
Hello bender you totally disregarded my post.
I highlighted in my long lost abou the Malaika
There are plenty of examples in Quran in which Malaika assume the form of men, it might not be their original form. But they have done it and they are well able to by the permission of Allah.
Abraham had honored guests who appeared to him and did not eat food
Lut received the Meseengers and his people demanded his guests.
God blinded them for their transgression.
A Messenger/Malaika appeared to Mary in her seclusion
One trait that the Maliaka have is to cause apprehension on the behalf of the a Messengers and appear as people unknown.
Abraham was afraid of them, Lut also felt fear or he felt straitened, Mary sought refuge in Allah from the messenger.They spoke and delivered their messages.
They are conscious independent beings.The only contradiction would be to deny this when it is clear that they appeared to people as men.
Show where you see the contradiction in the verses you speak of.
This is a perfect platform for us to study and help one another.
Don't just claim soothing causes contradiction without showing it please.You also overlooked the portion about the Jinn.
In what way would that theory make no sense?
I strongly feel that you need an elaborate argument to make such claim.
You have nothing to counter this very well established theory except for saying it makes no sense?
bravoThis is not how we study Quran folks
Let's use Quran ayyaas in our arguments and analyze each premise.Hi HP_TECH,
RED I did not disregarded your post, I just did not read it.
It was a long post and for me it always takes some time and some help from google-translator to understand everything what is written.
I rejected the jinn theory only with the information Invalid777 gave in his post, and you a right that I had not to judge so quickly, it was better if I had asked for more information.Salaam,
Bender -
Peace Invalid777
According to the mainstream interpretation of the Reading(Quran), there are verses which explicitly forbid any sexual relationship with a blood relative. We are also told that the "way of Allah never changes". If this is true, why on earth do Muslims believe that humanity spread through incest? Why did Allah need incest to kick-start the human race but ban it later down the road? Would that not contradict 3362 and 1777?
Cant you see that God have taken his precaution for ths situation. In the were ayat you quoted 4.23 ... except for what has already occurred..
Offcause if the amount of people is very few. There may have to be incest if the human race should be able to reproduce.
Before we didnt knew why incest was probited but know we know it has do with the inbreeding, The variety of the genes..
The crazy thing about this issue is From where do we think that incest is abomination if it wasn?t for God..
I thinking that before you wasnt into this gene thing.
And people can make sex without the purpose of reproduction. But its still prohibited when its eg. between siblings (In my country, Denmark it can give up to two years prison). -
Despite all of the (strange) idea proposed by the so-called holy books..
Let's stick on the actual fact
As can be observed, the more distant the relativeness of the pair the richer the gene pool for their offspring will be.
Lethal gene does exist, the probability of lethal gene increases as the 'relativeness' of the pair become closer.The pattern of the result of this lethal gene might be observable even by the ancient people.
That's why they invented a restriction on whom can be married or cannot be married.However human has tendency to do marriage 'in between their own group', primarily to safeguard all of the wealth to be kept within the family. Yet due to this lethal gene.. they invented some rules on those who are 'distant' enough to be married (e.g. the same ethnicity, the same religion etc..) and those who are too close to be married (e.g. siblings).
Despite the idea proposed by "holy books"..
The first homo sapien wasn't born alone on earth..
He (or she) has mom, dad and probably cousin, brothers / sisters as well.
He might have wife or wives.. (or she might have husband or husbands) and the children carries along the gene passed by the first homo sapien.The progeny of the first homo sapiens has a distinctive mark which makes the group 'superior' to the other hominid.
It's their LINGUISTIC capability.. they can communicate better among themselves.. sharing richer ideas and they can communicate better which makes their collective hunting (or warring) effort more effective than other hominid.The group was initially evolved in Tropical region in Africa..
Yes the "true" early homo sapiens were essentially a tropical species, they hate cold winter and enjoy the hot summer.
Dark skinned and curly hair..
They begin to migrate out of africa arriving on the area which is now called Arabian peninsula...
Some of them migrated northward venturing deep into caucasus region.. some of them migrated eastward as far as today's Australia.Along the way, they encountered many different kind of other hominid.
Among them was the Neanderthal.. the true native hominid inhabitant of middle east, central asia and europe.
Bigger bodies, light skinned, straight hair and colorful eyes and hair.
Yet their LINGUISTIC skill was not as good as the sapiens thus their hunting (and warring) skill were inferior to the sapiens.Many centuries passes with sapiens and neanderthal living together side by side..
Normally they don't do inter marriage.. as both parties find each others as "unattractive".
Yet eventually conflict arises... and on each war.. the lighter skinned neanderthal loses..The sapiens captured the Neanderthal girls and women as war booty... and "Made Love" with them.. although probably not with a consent of the neanderthal girls or women.
Their progeny inherited far richer gene pool compared to 'only sapiens' counterpart.
They inherited the linguistic and reasoning skill of the sapiens plus the resistant to cold and also other local diseases from the neanderthal. Their skin is lightly colored and their hair becoming straight...As time progress.. such inherited characteristic proven to be 'desirable' for survivability on the sub tropical region.
As such this sapiens + neanderthal mixes become superior than the 'pure sapiens'.
And become the new dominant race in the region.This is what we know so far.. the Neanderthal genes can be found in ALL Non Sub-Saharan African living today, including European, Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Malay, Indian, Pakistani), Native Australian (Aborigines, Maori) and Native American. And no Neanderthal gene can be found in today's Sub Saharan African.
The early chapter of humanity story on earth.. as we know today..
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607283.0Although might not synchornized well with the idea proposed by "Holy Books"..
-
Was already included in the OP but here it is anyway.
"That was the Way of Allah in the case of those who passed away of old, and you will not find any change in the Way of Allah"(3362)
"This has been consistently the case with all the messengers that we sent before you, and you will find that our system never changes"(1777)Salam Invalid777
Please look at the context of both verses. They are informing us about Way of Allah in those situations.
In my humble opinion no incest is involved as human race (Adama) was evolving and malaika were watching them spreading fasad and bloodshed. Let me quote your translation here
"And , when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know."(230)
You see present tense used (red color) So malaika were witnessing it happening. They were not asking or telling future.
My two cents )
Peace
-
Hello bender you totally disregarded my post.
Hi,
Ok I have read your post now, but I don't think I can agree with that theory.
It's a bit of a long post to comment on that post, so I take this one.I highlighted in my long lost abou the Malaika
There are plenty of examples in Quran in which Malaika assume the form of men, it might not be their original form. But they have done it and they are well able to by the permission of Allah.
Abraham had honored guests who appeared to him and did not eat food
Lut received the Meseengers and his people demanded his guests.
God blinded them for their transgression.There is are no malaikats in that story.
A Messenger/Malaika appeared to Mary in her seclusion
Also not a malaikat
One trait that the Maliaka have is to cause apprehension on the behalf of the a Messengers and appear as people unknown.
Abraham was afraid of them, Lut also felt fear or he felt straitened, Mary sought refuge in Allah from the messenger.RED why? 3 or 1000 examples is not a proof for something.
They spoke and delivered their messages.
They are conscious independent beings.The only contradiction would be to deny this when it is clear that they appeared to people as men.
Show where you see the contradiction in the verses you speak of.
I did not quote a verse where I thought there was a contradiction.
This is a perfect platform for us to study and help one another.
Don't just claim soothing causes contradiction without showing it please.
You also overlooked the portion about the Jinn.
In what way would that theory make no sense?I strongly feel that you need an elaborate argument to make such claim.
I was not discussing with you, I was only focused on the posts of Invalid777, so I had not that feeling to elaborate an argument on your post.
You have nothing to counter this very well established theory except for saying it makes no sense?
bravoI have also no argument for Jesus not being God when I discuss with a christian who is convinced that Jesus is God.
This is not how we study Quran folks
Let's use Quran ayyaas in our arguments and analyze each premise.Everyone of us has his own methods for studying something.
Salaam,
Bender -
Despite all of the (strange) idea proposed by the so-called holy books..
Let's stick on the actual fact
As can be observed, the more distant the relativeness of the pair the richer the gene pool for their offspring will be.
Lethal gene does exist, the probability of lethal gene increases as the 'relativeness' of the pair become closer.The pattern of the result of this lethal gene might be observable even by the ancient people.
That's why they invented a restriction on whom can be married or cannot be married.However human has tendency to do marriage 'in between their own group', primarily to safeguard all of the wealth to be kept within the family. Yet due to this lethal gene.. they invented some rules on those who are 'distant' enough to be married (e.g. the same ethnicity, the same religion etc..) and those who are too close to be married (e.g. siblings).
Despite the idea proposed by "holy books"..
The first homo sapien wasn't born alone on earth..
He (or she) has mom, dad and probably cousin, brothers / sisters as well.
He might have wife or wives.. (or she might have husband or husbands) and the children carries along the gene passed by the first homo sapien.The progeny of the first homo sapiens has a distinctive mark which makes the group 'superior' to the other hominid.
It's their LINGUISTIC capability.. they can communicate better among themselves.. sharing richer ideas and they can communicate better which makes their collective hunting (or warring) effort more effective than other hominid.The group was initially evolved in Tropical region in Africa..
Yes the "true" early homo sapiens were essentially a tropical species, they hate cold winter and enjoy the hot summer.
Dark skinned and curly hair..
They begin to migrate out of africa arriving on the area which is now called Arabian peninsula...
Some of them migrated northward venturing deep into caucasus region.. some of them migrated eastward as far as today's Australia.Along the way, they encountered many different kind of other hominid.
Among them was the Neanderthal.. the true native hominid inhabitant of middle east, central asia and europe.
Bigger bodies, light skinned, straight hair and colorful eyes and hair.
Yet their LINGUISTIC skill was not as good as the sapiens thus their hunting (and warring) skill were inferior to the sapiens.Many centuries passes with sapiens and neanderthal living together side by side..
Normally they don't do inter marriage.. as both parties find each others as "unattractive".
Yet eventually conflict arises... and on each war.. the lighter skinned neanderthal loses..The sapiens captured the Neanderthal girls and women as war booty... and "Made Love" with them.. although probably not with a consent of the neanderthal girls or women.
Their progeny inherited far richer gene pool compared to 'only sapiens' counterpart.
They inherited the linguistic and reasoning skill of the sapiens plus the resistant to cold and also other local diseases from the neanderthal. Their skin is lightly colored and their hair becoming straight...As time progress.. such inherited characteristic proven to be 'desirable' for survivability on the sub tropical region.
As such this sapiens + neanderthal mixes become superior than the 'pure sapiens'.
And become the new dominant race in the region.This is what we know so far.. the Neanderthal genes can be found in ALL Non Sub-Saharan African living today, including European, Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Malay, Indian, Pakistani), Native Australian (Aborigines, Maori) and Native American. And no Neanderthal gene can be found in today's Sub Saharan African.
The early chapter of humanity story on earth.. as we know today..
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607283.0Although might not synchornized well with the idea proposed by "Holy Books"..
This fable does not synchronize well with anything.... neither main stream human history or science.
There is no indication that Neanderthal were lightskinned and CroMagnum dark skinned
and definitely interbreeding between these two species is a fat stretch. -
Ancient people think that the story of humanity started like this
http//cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-18-2015/tGUEfT.gifWell that was what Mr Atkinson are actually make fun of.. a satirical comedy to how religious people think humanity started on earth.. Adam, the first human suddenly fall off from the heaven..
The actual story of "humanity", as evidenced by the DNA of modern human living today, is much more complicated than that..
I post the story here..
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607283.0lol
-
Through the development theory of the Spirit, scientific evolution does not have to be excluded. I trust what you can empirically prove with science and it does not necessarily have to clash with faith if you accept a faith which is not among the sectarian ones but based on logic and rationality. If Rabb inserted seedlings (blank "Spirit shares) into the Flesh to develop in a contradiction where the Spirit has to endure it for a long period with cycles as one human body lives for a certain interim, then it can go hand in hand with the scientific evolution.
This can also explain the varying level of life in different individuals with certain ones apparently more "deep" than others while many seem to mindlessly indulge in life without much reflection. The ones who feel slightly misplaced and alienated are actually spiritually developed and lightly conscious of that this Body of theirs is not really them. This difference can be quite showing in people.
Religion in this means absolutely nothing. It is all about exposing the true nature of your existence. You need to grow away from the enslaving nature of this World and be better than it.
You can say you live sort of in a schizophrenic condition and the solution is getting rid of the other and be, so to say, cured.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Man you've been warned about theorizing about The Spirit ruh. We've been given very little knowledge of it. This is in the Quran.
Furthermore you are not even using the Book. You're just hypothesizing and speculating with no knowledge or no book enlightening
-
HP_TECH,
I am using Quran. This is very knowledge from it. But we all can have our own opinion about what it is others have and you can have yours.
Be safe
Amenuel -
As I said earlier once, I am open to the concept of evolution. I actually did have the kind of doubt that Invalid showed here. I mean I thought exactly like him. Huruf added some interesting things on the verse 230 in the last thread. The verses which continue after that are also quite interesting. Why should it matter if Adam could tell names? Memorization was what made him/them capable of ruling over all? Nope, I feel there is something more.
I'd say that today's research on evolution is somewhat flawed.I find it rather weird that whenever they find a fossil they try to fit it into their scientific story by force, but then it turns out to be false. Remember Lucy? Anyways, I have been doing research and came across some interesting things. I am posting only a bit of it.
Let me know what you think..Btw, Ibn Miskawaih is from 10th century."According to Ibn Miskawaih plant-life at the lowest stage of
evolution does not need any seed for its birth and growth. Nor does it
perpetuate its species by means of the seed. The kind of plant-life
differs from minerals only in some little power of movement which
grows in higher forms, and reveals itself further in that the plant
spreads out its branches, and perpetuates its species by means of the
seed. The power of movement gradually grows further until we reach
trees which possess a trunk, leaves and fruit. At a higher stage of
evolution stand forms of plant- life which needs better soil and climate
for their growth. The last stage of development is reached in vine and
date-palm which stands, as it were on the threshold of animal life. In
the date-palm a clear sex-distinction appears. Besides roots and fibers,
it develops something which functions like animal brain, on the
integrity of which depends the life of the date-palm. This is the highest
stage in the development of plant-life, and a prelude to animal life.
The first forward step towards animal life is freedom from earthrootedness
which is the gem of conscious movement. This is the initial
stage of animality in which the sense of touch is the first, and the
sense of sight is the last to appear with the development of the senses
the animal acquires freedom of movement, as in the case of worms,
reptiles, ants, and bees...." page5
You can check out this paper http//pu.edu.pk/images/journal/uoc/PDF-FILES/(11)%20Dr.%20Sultan%20Shah_86_2.pdf for the early Muslims who talked about evolution.The book says modern scientists didn't believe we came from plants. However, science is not set in stone. Here is 2015 scientific update on this
"Humans may have evolved with genes acquired from plants, micro-organisms and fungi according to a new study.
The University of Cambridge findings challenge long-held perceptions about evolution and suggest that the process may be ongoing.
The findings also confirm the conclusions of a controversial 2001 study which suggested that humans may have evolved with genes acquired from plants but had much less data available to analyse. Academics widely dismissed its findings at the time and methods used.
Researchers now accept that around one per cent of the human genome could have been transferred from plants and other sources following the significantly larger study."http//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11467685/Humans-may-have-evolved-with-genes-from-plants-study-finds.html
-
There was some time ago a comical trio who sang a song saying that enough with the nonsense about who might be the ancestors of man, because it is final that man descends from the potato. It can be suspected that that potato ancestor, in Spanish, is due to the rhyme rather that to any scientific effort.
Now with this last post by reel I m becoming doubtful.
It was not said whether the potatos were raw or fried or boiled. I suspect, looking around, that they were fried.
Salaam
-
Salaam, reel,
Which was that earlier thread?
I know I mentionned in some thread the suggestion by a Moroccan friend in a Spanis forum, where he said that the tree that is mentionned in the janna is a linneage tree. I tend to think that makes a lot of sense.
Going back to 2.30, I disagree with the translation of khaleefa as viceregent. In all instances in which the verb khalafa appears and in all cases which the word khaleefa appears it has been translated a successor or coming after, only in one or two instances, depending on the translation, it ha been trasnlated as vice-regent or somethig akin. one of them this 2.30.
I do not see any reason to translate it as vice-regent. To make the exception in this case and make it look like somethig different from successor or coming after changes the information. One may suspect that the information is changed because it was not then it would mean that there had to be predecessors in order to there be successors. That is, the present human species is not the first humann species on earth. There were some human species before, who shed blood. And that is why the mala'ika wondered why would their Rabb create again somebody who would make mischief.
The vice-regent twist follows not the Qur'anic revelation but the biblical account, where it is said that God creaated man in His image and likeness, which might be interpreted in different ways, some of them not unqura'nic, but some of them unQura'nic. The vice-regent thing is Unqura'nic, first because khaleefa is not vice-regent, and second, because God is under no need to put any vicregent anywhere if anything and anybody would do whatever He wants and nothing would obey anything else unless it obeys Him. To put it otherwise would be not to make man in His image, but to make God in the image of man, who indeed needs to put vice-regents, delegates, deputees, agents, etc.
So why create man, not as vice-regent but as coming after some other specimens which already left a bad track.
God explains, I know what you do not know, and asks adam the names of things. What does that mean... In my view it means the capacity to understand, to learn, the intellect, the capacity to act by own will. "Own will" and the intellect to handle that own will.
But there was also Iblees, who then and there showed his Own will as well, since he disobeyed God.
So, the question arises Was Iblees an specimen of that earlier humanity who had already given proof of blood sheding?
That also raises the question of what are the mala'ika? For that I do not have any idea myself. At least not yet. We are usually told that they are not corporeal beings. I do not know, not yet anyway.
It occur to me it something phantastic ?might they be previous quasi-human without Own will who had already lived on earth and were set in a new dimension but who have access to us fromthat dimension? Just a question about a ppossible possibility.
There is also this aya
43.60. And if it were Our Will, We could make angels from amongst you, succeeding on earth.
There are other ayas of similar import.
and this
6.133. Thy Lord is self-sufficient, full of Mercy if it were His will, He could destroy you, and in your place appoint whom He will as your successors, even as He raised you up from the posterity of other people.
Here no particular people is addressed but the speech is set at the close of this life and men are addressed wholesale.
Also see, in ayas like 14.32, 14.33, 15.16 y 16.12 where God says that He has put at our disposal the sun, the rivers, etc. etc. So some people might understand that as a viceregency, but those things are also at the disposal of other creatures, not just us and, more impportantly, God says it that they are under God's orders. So no need of vice-regent.
And there is always the reason why we have Own will so that we can be tested. Our nature is to be tested, to evolve throw own will and testing.
We are not vice-regents (unless it is understood as regents of vice, excuse the pun) but since we have intellect and that intellect gives us power we may be tempted to believe that we are something above what we really are. Like Iblees, he did that.
Regarding this and the tree in the janna as linneage tree, think of the different species in the past, namely most recently the neanderthal and the cro-magnon. Cross-breeding might have been very dangerous for one of the species, like, for delivery, women could die in the impossiblity of very big heads coming out without killing the mother. Which might also explain the viciousness against women shown in the bible telling them that they will pay for their sin with the labours of delivery.
Salaam
-
Which was that earlier thread?
Never mind, you just talked about the verse in your post above. I was here asking about the wife we see in verse 235
And We said, "O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat therefrom in abundance from wherever you will. But do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers."If Adam is not a single person then does the Arabic word for wife means something else here?
Going back to 2.30, I disagree with the translation of khaleefa as viceregent. In all instances in which the verb khalafa appears and in all cases which the word khaleefa appears it has been translated a successor or coming after, only in one or two instances, depending on the translation, it ha been trasnlated as vice-regent or somethig akin. one of them this 2.30.
I do not see any reason to translate it as vice-regent. To make the exception in this case and make it look like somethig different from successor or coming after changes the information. One may suspect that the information is changed because it was not then it would mean that there had to be predecessors in order to there be successors. That is, the present human species is not the first humann species on earth. There were some human species before, who shed blood. And that is why the mala'ika wondered why would their Rabb create again somebody who would make mischief.
I am having little problem following the explanation. Do you mean to say that whatever beings were there had no connection to humans?
God explains, I know what you do not know, and asks adam the names of things. What does that mean... In my view it means the capacity to understand, to learn, the intellect, the capacity to act by own will. "Own will" and the intellect to handle that own will.
I agree. When I looked at the verse I thought of humans who could understand and learn to become civilized.
That also raises the question of what are the mala'ika? For that I do not have any idea myself. At least not yet. We are usually told that they are not corporeal beings. I do not know, not yet anyway.
Not definitely the ones described by mainstream religions. Probably, it would be difficult to establish their complete structure without seeing them.
It occur to me it something phantastic ?might they be previous quasi-human without Own will who had already lived on earth and were set in a new dimension but who have access to us fromthat dimension? Just a question about a ppossible possibility.
There is also this aya
43.60. And if it were Our Will, We could make angels from amongst you, succeeding on earth.
I felt it hinted the power of angels. I tried to link it to Verses 4358-59 according to which And they said, "Are our gods better, or is he?" They did not present the comparison except for argument. But, , they are a people prone to dispute. Jesus was not but a servant upon whom We bestowed favor, and We made him an example for the Children of Israel.
I thought that by bringing up angels Allah is saying that he allows humans to dispute about the superiority of whatever Gods they believed in. If he wanted he could have placed angels on earth because they worship and work for him without any questions and disputes.6.133. Thy Lord is self-sufficient, full of Mercy if it were His will, He could destroy you, and in your place appoint whom He will as your successors, even as He raised you up from the posterity of other people.
Here no particular people is addressed but the speech is set at the close of this life and men are addressed wholesale.
Well, Allah can do the least expected for sure.
Also see, in ayas like 14.32, 14.33, 15.16 y 16.12 where God says that He has put at our disposal the sun, the rivers, etc. etc. So some people might understand that as a viceregency, but those things are also at the disposal of other creatures, not just us and, more impportantly, God says it that they are under God's orders. So no need of vice-regent.
And there is always the reason why we have Own will so that we can be tested. Our nature is to be tested, to evolve throw own will and testing.
We are not vice-regents (unless it is understood as regents of vice, excuse the pun) but since we have intellect and that intellect gives us power we may be tempted to believe that we are something above what we really are. Like Iblees, he did that.
Regarding this and the tree in the janna as linneage tree, think of the different species in the past, namely most recently the neanderthal and the cro-magnon. Cross-breeding might have been very dangerous for one of the species, like, for delivery, women could die in the impossiblity of very big heads coming out without killing the mother. Which might also explain the viciousness against women shown in the bible telling them that they will pay for their sin with the labours of delivery.
Of course, there are other things which can cause DNA mutation. That can change our biological structure and still keep us alive. But I don't know how long it takes for human body to accept it.