Isn't the concept of "submitting to God's will" a bit blasphemous?
-
peace brother Ayman,
It means "to make salam". So if "salam" means "submission" then it could mean "to make submission". However, there is no context where "submission" makes more sense than "peace" as a meaning of "salam". So "to make peace" is the more accurate meaning.
Are you 100% sure about this? i.e. there is no other theoretical possibility according to Arabic forms/grammar? The reason I ask is because if the above is true that would mean almost everyone has made a totally basic error in understanding the term "aslama", and consequently "islam".
Do you have a link for "aslama = to make salam" (in English)?
Thanks.
-
My response to thegod
Three of the verses I posted are 383, 320 , 8421; & far as I can see, none of these talk about the "Will of God;" likewise, the verses u have offered (1315, 20111) do not seem to talk about the "Will of God".
I don't mean to be difficult, but I see these verses "relevant to" (your words) the will of God because I believe these verses make it clear that we have no choice when it comes to submitting to God - I argue that we have no such choice because it is God's will that this be the case (i.e. God's "will" will be done). But I acknowledge this to be my INTERPRETATION.
I believe the first 2 verses I referenced (383 and 1315) tell us that we HAVE no choice ("willingly or unwillingly".
I believe I was mistaken by referencing 20111 (At the time, I had believed the verse implied that ALL would submit / be humbled (i.e. we have no choice), but upon further examination, I do not believe that this verse is necessarily referring to ALL )
If your point is that there is no verse that specifically defines "the will of God" or uses such a phrase, then I believe you are correct and my apologies for misunderstanding you.
I believe the point I have been trying to make is a point that you and I agree on
The idea that anybody can supercede God's Will is blasphemous.
You also said
The only verse that I posted which I reckon talks about something like God's Will is 2218
It makes pretty clear that there are amongst mankind those who do not bow to God, but as the verse ending clarifies, in no way are they superceding His Will.OK - I partially agree with what you are saying about the ending; my comment is that I don't believe the MEANING of the ending is "clarifies, in no way are they superceding His Will". I believe the ending "God does whatsoever He will" is more of a proclamation of the limitless nature of God. To me, this statement is a CONTRAST to the LIMITED nature of God's creation (including man) from this proclamation, I understand that God can do whatever God wants, whereas man (or any of God's creation) can do whatever man wants within the LIMITATIONS imposed by God. Or to put it another way, I believe this verse contrasts the NATURE of God's creation vs. the NATURE of God I believe the 'flavor' of the beginning of this verse to be that God's creation has no choice and is subject to God... that such is the nature of God's creation. And that the 'flavor' of the verse ending is that God is not subject to anyone or anything, such being the nature of God.
However, the FASCINATION part of this verse to me is "and many of mankind?"
I am suspicious of the translation you and Wakas have posted because of the contradiction that I perceive. I will try to explain what I believe to be a contradiction in my response to Wakas.
Bottom line I find that you articulated the point I was trying to make better than I when you said
The idea that anybody can supercede God's Will is blasphemous.
Thank you-
-
My response to thegod
The idea that it is God's Will that everybody should be a muslim... is not found in the quraan.
I agree with the concept of what you are saying. In fact, I find the OPPOSITE to be true (in support of your point) I find the Quran makes it clear that God chose NOT to make all of mankind submit to His guidance (see e.g. 635, 1099, 1331)
The idea that ... it His Will that all should submit their wills to His Will is not found in the quraan. Had that been the Will of God, that would have been the end of it.
I think I agree with what you mean; but some of the words you have chosen leave some "loose ends" for me (e.g. 'should' to me implies a choice).
If you mean that the Quran does not state "", I agree -
Response to Wakas
I was highlighting 2218 does not say "willingly or unwillingly", as it does in 1315. Thus, when it says "many from mankind" in 2218 it would be referring to those who willingly sjd.
I am currently struggling with what I perceive to be a contradiction in this verse that maybe you and others can help me with
I believe the beginning of the verse is stating that there is no choice God prostrates to Him "whoever". I find the 'flavor' of this to be all-encompassing (and many of the translators use the word "all" e.g. "... bow all who are in the heavens and all who are in the earth" as posted by thegod)
The contradiction that I see is at the end of the sentence ("many from mankind". If this phrase is PART of the first sentence, then is this phrase not in contradiction with the earlier part of the sentence which I believe to be all-encompassing?
2218 Hast thou not seen how to God bow all who are in the heavens and all who are in the earth, the sun and the moon, the stars and the mountains, the trees and the beasts, and many of mankind? And many merit the chastisement; and whom God abases, there is none to honour him. God does whatsoever He will.
Thank you for your reference to Toshihiko Izutsu. Is there a website re linguistic analysis of words/concepts? I did a search and found information about him and excerpts from some of his books, but am hoping you can point me towards his content on linguistic analysis of words/concepts.
-
Reply to Wakas
In my original post, I was suggesting that Yusuf Ali had superceded his authority with his definition of Islam.
Your response was
Is ?Islam is bowing to the Will of God? in The Quran?
I interpreted your response to imply you somehow disagreed with me.
Your latest response suggests to me that you are in agreement Yusuf Ali's definition cannot be correct.
The word "islam" by itself has no connection with God or Quran etc, thus definitely has no connection to "Will of God".
Please correct me if I have misunderstood your position.
-
Response to belH
moslem is a person who submits to God's Laws and not a person who makes peace; A person who makes peace has a word in Arabic Mosalem
Although I may agree that your definition is correct, I also believe that "God's Laws" are all about promoting peace.
I may be mistaken, but I have concluded that God's guidance is ALL ABOUT PEACE. If you wish to disprove this, please post any of God's guidance that, should we follow it, does not PROMOTE peace.
-
peace Samson,
It seems all is more of an interpretation, relative pronoun "man" can mean whoever/whatever/who/what. I have not studied this though, but M.Asad states his interpretation of it is "all" implying it can have other interpretations, which other translators have used.
His note on 2218
According to Zamakhshari and Razi, this interpolated phrase - with its stress on "consciously" - is an elliptically implied predicate (khabar) linked with the preceding nominal subject (mubtada) the purport being that although everything in creation "prostrates itself before God, willingly or unwillingly (cf. 1315), not all human beings do so consciously.
And in case it was not clear, I do not agree with Yusus Ali's definition of islam.
-
Peace brother Wakas,
Are you 100% sure about this? i.e. there is no other theoretical possibility according to Arabic forms/grammar?
Everyone is 100% sure that "salam" is better translated as "peace" and not as "submission". The rest is a matter of simple deduction based on how the same forms are used in Arabic. Also, "make peace" fits in all the occurrences of "aslama" and "peacemaking/peacemaker" fits in all the occurrences of "islam/muslim".
The reason I ask is because if the above is true that would mean almost everyone has made a totally basic error in understanding the term "aslama", and consequently "islam".
As for almost everyone making a totally basic error in understanding the term "aslama", and consequently "islam", all we can say is thanks to the god our lord who has guided us to what is better.
Do you have a link for "aslama = to make salam" (in English)?
Nope. There are however many English links for ?extreme Islamic Jihad? (literally extreme peaceful striving), which when the truth will become known and they will be looked back on by future generations, they will see how stupid this generation was.
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace brother Ayman,
Thanks for the info. I think have understood what has been going on
aslama can literally mean "to make peace", and "to make peace" is related to its other commonly cited meanings, e.g. surrender. I found it interesting however, that I cant recall reading anyone saying the literal or the form it is in can mean "to make salam".
Also, "make peace" fits in all the occurrences of "aslama" and "peacemaking/peacemaker" fits in all the occurrences of "islam/muslim".
I have only skimmed your article but I noted it did not cover 383, shown below
Do they seek other than the system of God, when all things in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly have aslama (past tense) to Him, and to Him they will be returned.
Can you provide your translation with explanation? Thanks.
-
Peace Samson,
I agree with you in that there seems to be an apparent contradiction and it is bothering me a lot. "Man fil ardh" includes "alnaas" and "haq alaihi alazaab", so there will be a contradiction between first part of 2218 and the second part and also with 1315.
Maybe there is a mistranslation or maybe the alnaas in this verse are not on Earth when they are being addressed in this verse. Maybe it references the alnaas before they came to Earth, when they were in the garden?
-
Peace brother Wakas,
Thanks for the info. I think have understood what has been going on
aslama can literally mean "to make peace", and "to make peace" is related to its other commonly cited meanings, e.g. surrender. I found it interesting however, that I cant recall reading anyone saying the literal or the form it is in can mean "to make salam".Thank you for your understanding. Yes, "make peace" and "surrender" are closely related.
I have only skimmed your article
As you probably noticed, the article needs to be updated since my understanding has slightly improved since it was written. It needs to say "peacemaking" instead of "peacefulness".
but I noted it did not cover 383, shown below
Do they seek other than the system of God, when all things in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly have aslama (past tense) to Him, and to Him they will be returned.
Can you provide your translation with explanation? Thanks.- Do they seek other than the obligation of the god, while all who (are) in the heavens and the earth, have made peace to him voluntarily and compulsorily, and to him they are returned.
As for my personal explanation, in my opinion the use of the past tense here indicates not something that happened in the past but something that is predestined. The same can be said, for example, about passages that talk about the day of the account and the afterlife in the past tense despite those events being in the future.
While in 383 "aslama" is in the past tense, notice that in 1315 and 2218 the verb "yasjud" is in the present tense so it is not predestined that everyone will completely "yasjud". Also, there is no "or" in 1315 and 383, it is "and" (compare this to the "or" in 4111).
Also, it seems that while "making peace" is an attitude, "sujud"/obedience is a temporal response, for example, when we hear the god's signs. Thus, even people who will go to hell do "sujud"/obedience at one point or another as per 2218. This is my present interpretation.
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace belH,
I did not say anything about "muslim" being related to submitting to God's law. The words "islam" and "muslim" have no inherent connection to God, Quran etc.
Peace all
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Now,
These words (moslem, aslam, islam) mean submission
These words (mosalem, salm, salam) mean peace
(8-43, 2-233, 24-27, 24-61, 8-61, 47-35, 4-90, 4-91, 39-29, 4-94)
Now, are the two words related? ones can say they are related because submitting to God's Laws will lead us to make Peace with our Souls and God, which I agree. But to say any one who makes peace in a conflict situation is the one that God calls him submitter (moslem), then I will have to disagree; after all, there are many people who do not believe in God (or believe in Hadithes, or worship Fire and trees) but they make peace in conflict situations.
Peace
Response to belH
Although I may agree that your definition is correct, I also believe that "God's Laws" are all about promoting peace.
I may be mistaken, but I have concluded that God's guidance is ALL ABOUT PEACE. If you wish to disprove this, please post any of God's guidance that, should we follow it, does not PROMOTE peace.
I hope I clarified more in my reply above.
-
Reply to Wakas
It seems all is more of an interpretation, relative pronoun "man" can mean whoever/whatever/who/what. I have not studied this though, but M.Asad states his interpretation of it is "all" implying it can have other interpretations, which other translators have used.
His note on 2218
http//www.islamawakened.com/Quran/22/18/default.htm
Thanks for your post Wakas - as I examine Asad's translation of 2218, he says
ART THOU NOT aware that before God prostrate themselves all that are in the heavens and all that are on earth that..." is explained in note on 1315.]
It seems to me that REGARDLESS of which translation is used for (man in / whoever in / whatever in ...), I believe that this phrase is ALL INCLUSIVE (i.e. I do not believe that this is referring to a SUBSET of " or of "". I understand the MEANING of this verse to be that within God's creation prostrates themselves, including the sun and the moon etc...
And if I am correct, then I believe this suggest the following to be true
- If God has just stated that is subservient to Him, then there is no need to qualify this with "willingly or unwillingly". To me, adding such a qualification is redundant and so I do not agree with the relevance that you place upon the absence of "willingly or unwillingly" in 2218 when you contrast this verse to 1315
See 2218. The difference between this verse and 1315 seems to provide the answer. If 2218 had said willingly or unwillingly, then it would have to say or include "all mankind", but it says "and many from mankind" i.e. not all.
Anyone can surrender, anyone can give recognition, anyone can be thankful, anyone can make peace, anyone can obey, but not everyone will do so willingly.... that is the key.- Whatever " " means (translation referenced earlier by thegod was "and many of mankind", I do NOT believe that it can mean anything that CONTRADICTS the prior phrase.
As I examine this verse (thanks for referencing it so that I could observe what I believe to be a contradiction), this verse makes MORE sense to me if "and many of mankind" is the BEGINNING of the next sentence.
I will use Asad's translation since you have referenced it
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.
Note Asad is the ONLY translator that I have found who begins a new sentence as I am suggesting, so I was delighted that you pointed me towards his translation.
I do not speak arabic, so I really need help here. I see the arabic to be " "
Examining this, it seems that the arabic words are identical and repeated twice, which to me would mean '". To me, this might suggest an emphasis on the word "MANY" because of the repetition. Yet Asad has chosen to differentiate the two identical phrases by translating them as "and many" vs. "whereas many" in order to suggest that there are two groups of people being contrasted. Although I would be OK with such a translation if classical arabic grammar supports such a differentiation (this is where I am lacking and need help from others), I find that NEITHER meaning (neither Asad's nor mine) is in conflict with the prior phrase - which to me is a GOOD thing. 18 other translations I have examined pose the contradiction as I have described.
PS - I found Asad's translation on IA, but it seems IA is missing some of Asad's notes (e.g. for 1315). Is there another online source that anyone is aware of for Asad's complete translation and notes?
-
Reply to truthseeker11
I agree with you in that there seems to be an apparent contradiction and it is bothering me a lot. "Man fil ardh" includes "alnaas" and "haq alaihi alazaab", so there will be a contradiction between first part of 2218 and the second part and also with 1315.
EXACTLY my point. What do you think of my response to Wakas above?
-
1315 And to God prostrate all who are in the heavens and the Earth, willingly and unwillingly, as do their shadows in the morning and the evening.
Chapter 16
1648 Did they not see that anything God creates, its shadow inclines to the right and the left in prostration to God, while they may resent it? -
Peace Samson,
EXACTLY my point. What do you think of my response to Wakas above?
What you are suggesting is not grammatically correct. Also If you start a new sentence with "and many of the people" it will not make any sense. Also there is no "whereas" in the original Arabic but there is an "and" instead.
Let's see what happens when we start a new sentence from "and many of the people". That will also grammatically require that there is a comma instead of full stop before "whoever God disgraces" otherwise it won't make any sense
2218 Did you not see that to God is obedient 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 the people, and many who have deserved the retribution, and whoever God disgraces, then none can honor him. God does what He pleases.
As you can see, the part in bold does not make any sense. It would mean "and many of the people then none can honor him" which is nonsensical. Grammatically "and many of the people, and many who have deserved the retribution" has to be a part of the previous sentence and then there is a new sentence starting with "and whoever God disgraces" for the verse to make sense
2218 Did you not see that to God is obedient 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 the people, and many who have deserved the retribution. And whoever God disgraces, then none can honor him. God does what He pleases.
I believe I have resolved the apparent contradiction. The wording used in Arabic is "man FI al-ardh" which means "what is IN the Earth" not "what is ON the Earth". The Arabic for "what is on the Earth" would be "man ALA al-ardh". People are not IN Earth but they are ON Earth. So "man FI al-ardh" would not be inclusive of the people.
-
I believe I have resolved the apparent contradiction. The wording used in Arabic is "man FI al-ardh" which means "what is IN the Earth" not "what is ON the Earth". The Arabic for "what is on the Earth" would be "man ALA al-ardh". People are not IN Earth but they are ON Earth. So "man FI al-ardh" would not be inclusive of the people.
What do you make of 4131? Is it your belief that this verse is also not inclusive of people? How about 383? 63? 2284? 329?
I believe these verses also use "FI" as the qualifier?
