Decoding 69:17
-
I could not understand it. I had said this "If not then "Angels" can't be described as natural forces, as was perhaps thought and advocated by G.A Pervez".
How can you say that what I said about him was not true when you have yourself given a quote from G.A Pervez and admitted "we do know now that Pervez did consider malaika as natural forces"ah, my bad, I'm sorry I misunderstood you. )
-
{8119]
This is about Jibrael .how do you know that?
-
ah, my bad, I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
welcome. I knew you misunderstood. I only wanted to keep record straight for reason of use of word "not true". 90% of Pervez's work in Urdu I have read critically. But since I was not quoting him specifically I used the word "perhaps" to absolve myself of tracing reference. Thanks.
-
Salam Wakas,
Can these forces take the physical appearance of Men visible to human sight? If not then "Angels" can't be described as natural forces, as was perhaps thought and advocated by G.A Pervez.
peace,
Yes, they could, because we do not know about all functions of all malaika. If there is something in AQ saying otherwise, then I will re-consider. -
peace,
Yes, they could, because we do not know about all functions of all malaika. If there is something in AQ saying otherwise, then I will re-consider.Peace Wakas,
O kaym But where does AQ says this type of thing
From my studies "malaika" which is commonly translated as "angels" is better rendered as forces in control, or nature's forces/laws, e.g. F=ma, E=mc2,
-
Peace everyone
would anyone shed some light on the following verse
Khalifa
The angels will be all around, and Your Lord's dominion will then encompass eight (universes).
Yusuf Ali
And the angels will be on its sides, and eight will, that Day, bear the Throne of thy Lord above them.
Shakir
And the angels shall be on the sides thereof; and above ) I them eight shall bear on that day your Lord's power.
Sher Ali
And the angels will be standing on its borders, and above them on that day eight angels will bear the Throne of thy Lord.how would you make sense of the information given in that verse?
No unless i know what is arsh(throne). It could mean the universe, it could mean our galaxy or even the solar system. It is after a while our world since the other galaxies are off limits for us. It takes two million light years between us and the next galaxy, Andromeda. Plus the Quran says that there are many angels so why only eight? evn the Bible says angels are in the millions of millions in numbers. so why only eight? And the verse also says n that day, meaning it could be the throne on the day of judgement and not always or the complete throne. It all depends whether the Quran is talking from God's point of view or from our point of view.
Anyways the verse is concerning the metaphysical world which is beyond our scope of imagination.
-
peace,
But where does AQ says this type of thing
See my article on DaRaBa, part 1, section 6 and 16 for example. Alternatively, any verse discussing malaika. It's fairly clear they have a functional role, like various equations perform a function, e.g. F=ma.
-
It's fairly clear they have a functional role, like various equations perform a function, e.g. F=ma.
Previously you said "From my studies "malaika" which is commonly translated as "angels" is better rendered as forces in control, or nature's forces/laws, e.g. F=ma, E=mc2, thus it would mean eight forces are responsible/undertaking the action described."
Just to clarify then, are you saying that malaika have a functional role in the same way as equations in physics? Or that malaika are these equations (which represent observed relationships in the physical sciences)? The former is interesting, but the latter seems completely nonsensical. Looking in Wehr and Lane I can't find any reference to "natural laws" under Meem Lam Kaf, although I do find "angels" mentioned.
This interpretation, of naturasl laws, seems totally eisegetical for we are told we must believe in the malaika (2177, 2285). Upon closer scrutiny we see that these verses are talking about articles of faith which must be literally believed, and there doesn't seem to be any room for any of the categories to be allegorical or figurative. We are told to believe in God, the last day, the book (al kitabi) and the prophets, all of which are literal and non figurative. How is it then that malaika is to be a figure of speech for equations of "natural laws"?
Are you saying that you understand 2177 to be saying "it is righteousness...to believe in the laws of nature"? Or simply that it is righteousness to believe that there are laws of nature. The latter seems unlikely considering the definite article is attached in 2177 "almalaikati". If the former, then this brings up another difficulty man's understanding of the physical laws has changed, and been corrected, over the centuries. People 1400 years ago would not have had the same understanding of the physical world, and thus for them to believe (as they are commanded) in "almalaikati" as the natural laws would likely entail believing in something false. Our Lord would not ask us to believe in something false.
Throughout scripture "malaika" are spoken of as conscious beings, and not as equations. How would you translate 2161, 318, 380 if malaika are natural laws? There are of course other verses we can discuss, but I don't see anyway that malaika can be an allegory/figure of speech for "natural laws". If we must believe in malaika then they must be literal, and must be understood as they are described, unless you can find another category of faith that must be believed that is in fact clearly allegorical. I don't think one exists though, because to ask us to believe in solely an allegory makes absolutely no sense. Allegories may be used to describe aspects of a literal truth which we cannot yet understand, such as Heaven and Hell, which are literally true, but whose descriptions one can take figuratively as we have not yet experienced them. That's why "natural laws" as an allegory for controllers (malaika) is nonsensical, it is totally unclear what it is that one must believe. Is it the existence of "laws of nature"? Is it the "laws of nature"? Nothing is clarified because whenever malaika are described as sentient beings, then this too is considered to be an "allegory"! Moreover, malaika are implied as being part of "al ghayb" (see 2210 and 343, as well as other stories of earlier prophets, in which malaika are involved), yet the "laws of nature" are certainly within the realm human perception.
Peace
-
peace Hoppean,
Firstly, I did not exclusively limit malaika to "nature's laws" (i.e. only those found in our world). I just mentioned that as an explanatory note. The general term would be "controlling forces or forces in control" (not only in our world). I'm not sure to what extent this impacts the rest of what you said.
Secondly, the root MLK is full of words such as to rule/command/reign, be capable, to control, power/authority etc. I have not specifically looked for "natural laws".
Re al kitab
I am not sure how you define this term, or what you think it refers to. Can you clarify?I am not sure if I understood your use of the word "allegorical" and "figurative". Can you provide me with a clear and specific example for me to consider.
Re 2177
I dont see an obvious problem in "it is righteousness to believe in the controlling forces... etc". Interestingly, this would make more sense than mystical angels, as how does believing in them make one righteous?People 1400 years ago would not have had the same understanding of the physical world, and thus for them to believe (as they are commanded) in "almalaikati" as the natural laws would likely entail believing in something false. Our Lord would not ask us to believe in something false.
Their understanding of them is what is false, not that they are false.
yet the "laws of nature" are certainly within the realm human perception.
Their effects can be observed and components, but not the actual controlling force, as far as I'm aware. In any case, Mazhar referenced malaika being visible in one example, thus I am not sure how concrete I would make claims like all malaika are al ghayb etc.
Re 2161
How does all of mankind condemn/curse those referenced? As for my view, see Shabbir's QXP explanatory note for example.Re 318
Since all controlling forces originate from one unifying source, and all slot in to fit into the big picture, of course they in recognition of one source. Perhaps if the laws of physics were ever-changing then perhaps a recognition of one unifying source could be disputed.Re 380
Many people take controlling forces as lords, .e.g sun/moon/stars/rain/fire/etc. -
@mountaineer anyway here is G A Pervez's view of Malaika
<< Malaika - malik - (alif-lam-kaf or meem-lam-kaf)
Parwez's entry is both presumptuous and deceptive. He writes that they are "are given the responsibility to discharge certain duties," "are used as messengers," "direct affairs," "govern events by the Command," and "constantly record human actions".
He finally concludes, "Malaika are the heavenly forces which are operating in the universe according to the charter of duties assigned to them by Allah."It looks like a duck. It even walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. But it is not a duck. By using "Force" instead of "Angel" Parwez attempts to impress that he has unveiled a hitherto undiscovered representation of "Malaika".
Somewhere in between he moves on to "subjective forces having psychological effect," and Malaika are no longer "forces" but "positive forces".
He rounds off his lopsided exposition without a word on "Malik" (or "Mulk" or "Maalik". Too bad he didn't try to add a little note on 230 (his translation is way off the mark, anyway).
-
@wakas Many people take controlling forces as lords, .e.g sun/moon/stars/rain/fire/etc.
These are controlling forces aka "malaika" according to you?
I am aware of their depiction along your lines in Greek and Hindu mythology, but any reference from the Quran where they have been termed "malaika" would be fine.
-
I thought it would be fun to see how Parwez and Shabbir have gone about 1231, seeing that it contains the M word. I start with Parvez
(31) When Azizs wife heard their malicious talk, she invited them and got a cushioned banquet ready for them giving each of them knife. Then she asked Joseph to come in. When they saw him they were dazed by his beauty. (The women tried their best to entice Joseph but were unsuccessful.) Thereupon they wounded their hands (so that they might accuse Joseph of attacking them) although they knew fully well how pure and strong his character was.
He has avoided the inconvenience by not making a direct reference to the word, but has made a note of Joseph's dazing beauty. (Wonder where he got the tidbits from).
Now comes Shabbir. He denounces the fabrication of Joseph's dazing beauty (while being privy to some undisclosed info himself), but has rendered the M word as "angel," nonetheless
1231 When she heard their gossip, she invited them, and prepared comfortable couches for them, and they schemed. She gave a knife to each of the women. Then, she called Joseph, Come out unto them! And when they saw him they flattered him and cut their hands. They exclaimed in their flattery, Good Lord! This is no mortal man! This is but an angel!
Pretty forceless translations.
-
Are you saying that you understand 2177 to be saying "it is righteousness...to believe in the laws of nature"? Or simply that it is righteousness to believe that there are laws of nature. The latter seems unlikely considering the definite article is attached in 2177 "almalaikati". If the former, then this brings up another difficulty man's understanding of the physical laws has changed, and been corrected, over the centuries. People 1400 years ago would not have had the same understanding of the physical world, and thus for them to believe (as they are commanded) in "almalaikati" as the natural laws would likely entail believing in something false. Our Lord would not ask us to believe in something false.
It is theoretically possible that it is righteousness to believe in the laws of nature, i.e. something akin to the former definition in your quote above. I am not saying this is necessarily the correct interpretation as malaikat furthers merit study; simply saying it is possible. The fact that man's understanding of the physical laws has changed is irrelevant. The righteousness is perhaps in believing in the system itself. Similarly, can we eschew science as a whole simply because our views of what is and is not scientific change over the years? Clearly not, we still believe in the validity of the system (the scientific method) itself.
And to be clear, these "laws of nature" need not only be physical laws; they can also be the 'spiritual' laws the creator has imbued the universe with. In this sense, the interpretation of this verse makes perfect sense. The system of requital (of each person being paid their dues, positive or negative, contingent upon their actions/thoughts throughout life) is what is at stake here, and in a sense, is what the entirety of the quran is about. It is righteousness to believe in this system. And how can we preclude cognitive dissonance vis a vis our belief in this system? Simple, by believing there is (a) a creator who (b) set up a system of requital (symbolized by the Last Day) which function according to (c) the malaikat, the controlling forces/laws/constants, the existence and descriptions of which are encapsulated in the (d) scriptures, which are delivered by (e) prophets. In other words, 2177.
The rest of the verse then goes on to state what one must do to apply these aforementioned beliefs, i.e. how to walk the walk, and not just talk the talk. Peace.
-
This may also please be considered, perhaps there is no scientist enemy to the forces of nature.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/002.217.gif
Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His Angels and His Messengers and to Gib'raa'eil and Mie'kaa'la for that reason Allah is far-off for those who have deliberately/persistently refused to accept.http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/002.02.B.083.htm
-
Firstly, I did not exclusively limit malaika to "nature's laws" (i.e. only those found in our world). I just mentioned that as an explanatory note. The general term would be "controlling forces or forces in control" (not only in our world). I'm not sure to what extent this impacts the rest of what you said.
Ok, I see. My position is that malaika, according to scripture, are conscious and teleological actors. So I could accept "controlling forces" as long as they are not reduced to simple causal relationships that have been observed.
Secondly, the root MLK is full of words such as to rule/command/reign, be capable, to control, power/authority etc. I have not specifically looked for "natural laws".
Yes, so controller makes sense. However, the laws of nature themselves are not literally "contollers", as "to control" is a verb and as such requires an actor. Since the laws of nature are not conscious actors, "controllers" would be a figurative interpretation of malaika.
Re al kitab I am not sure how you define this term, or what you think it refers to. Can you clarify?
In this context I believe it refers to revelation in general, or scripture. Or if you prefer to God's decree of revealing something to man.
I am not sure if I understood your use of the word "allegorical" and "figurative". Can you provide me with a clear and specific example for me to consider.
Sure, as I mentioned previously those categories of the deen which one must believe include God, the last day, prophets/messengers, books and malaika. I think you would agree that anyone denying any of these would ipso facto be outside of the deen which God revealed, so they are extremely important categories. I think you would also agree that none of these categories, in and of themselves, can be understood to be figurative. So for instance, to believe in God, would not be to figuratively say "believe in global warming"; rather "believe in God" is a literal truth, which cannot be allegorized. Thus we believe in God, the lord and creator of all that exists, as it is written in scripture, and not that "God" is a figure of speech for something else. The same analysis applies to prophets, the last day etc. Another example would be Hell, its descriptions may be allegorical, but its truth, or reality, is literal. Hell is not, for instance, an allegory for how man may suffer here on earth during his life. On the contrary, it is a true reality that exist after this life.
Here's why this is important something literal can be described allegorically, but it cannot be defined as such. To define anything is to give it a literal reality. It does nothing to "define" something with a figure of speech, this only begs the question. Thus, malaika (controllers) to figuratively describe the laws of nature creates a major problem, because we don't know what it literally means. What exactly are we believing in when we say "we believe in malaika"? The problem gets worse as we analyze scripture further, for malaika are contantly described as conscious actors (talking to people, revealing future events etc). Since, by our assumption, we take malaika to be non actors (in a conscious, telelogical sense) then all we have left to "define" what we believe in, are simply more allegories.
Re 2177 I dont see an obvious problem in "it is righteousness to believe in the controlling forces... etc". Interestingly, this would make more sense than mystical angels, as how does believing in them make one righteous?
It is righteous to believe in angels precisely because they are unseen and unverifiable by our senses, or instruments. Thus, just as we believe in God, though He is unseen (and could never be seen), by believing in unseen angels with prefect faith we demonstrate that we trust in God with all our hearts.
Their understanding of them is what is false, not that they are false.
Right. However, my point was that the definite article "al" in front of malaika would denote something more than just the fact that natural laws exist. Thus if they have a false understanding of the "natural laws", then they are believing in falsehood (if they in fact believed malaika were the natural laws). If they believed that malaika were just the existence natural laws in general, then the definite article seems confusing.
Their effects can be observed and components, but not the actual controlling force, as far as I'm aware. In any case, Mazhar referenced malaika being visible in one example, thus I am not sure how concrete I would make claims like all malaika are al ghayb etc.
Well I think we can agree that God can reveal aspects of al ghayb to whomever He chooses. Thus, the fact that some blessed people have seen malaika (in the form of men), does not contradict the notion that in general, they are beyond our perception
Re 2161 How does all of mankind condemn/curse those referenced? As for my view, see Shabbir's QXP explanatory note for example.
Mankind's condemnation does not in this verse imply something temporal. For instance, we know on the day of judgment even of those among hell will condemn each other. However, frankly, my own understanding of this verse is irrelevant. My point was simply to demonstrate that malaika here is again being used allegorically, as "to condemn/curse" are verbs and thus actions taken by conscious beings. An equation does not literally curse anyone.
Re 318 Since all controlling forces originate from one unifying source, and all slot in to fit into the big picture, of course they in recognition of one source. Perhaps if the laws of physics were ever-changing then perhaps a recognition of one unifying source could be disputed.
Again my point is to show that logically you must interpret malaika allegorically, as the laws of physics do not literally bear witness to anything. On a side note QXP's translation here is somewhat disingenuous. While knowledge is a valid translation and scientia (science) means "knowledge" in latin, it is absurd to translate it as "men and women of science", as "science" in modern english has the connotation of referring to the "physical sciences". Would you consider an economist to be a scientist? Most people would not, thus his translation is extremely misleading.
Re 380 Many people take controlling forces as lords, .e.g sun/moon/stars/rain/fire/etc.
That's the whole point, these malaika that are taken as false gods and lords, are worshipped with the assumption that they are conscious actors and not simply formulas.
I would like to emphasize that the crux of my argument is that to define malaika (controllers), in any sort of allegorical way, becomes nonsensical once we look at those verses which talk about necessary beliefs. All the other categories of faith are literal, not figurative, clear and unambiguous as to their meaning. Then come "almalaikati", the definite article indicates that they refer to something specific, and not general. Angels are a specific creation by God for a specific purpose, described as though they were conscious and acting. Whereas, "laws of nature" are extremely non specific, they are observed or deduced causal relationships; for instance, why only physical laws? In economic science there are "natural laws" even more certain than those of physics, such as the law of marginal utility. Yet I do not believe the law of marginal utility to fall within the category of malaika.
Throughout the scripture malaika are described as conscious actors with specific functions and tasks, and are generally beyond our perception. To say these descriptions are figurative, is to say that God allegorized "non conscious and non teleological acting" malaika as conscious and acting beings. Surely an absurdity, as the point of an allegory is to relate the subject matter to something that is clearer to the reader, and not to illustrate the opposite qualities.
Peace
-
peace tg,
Rather than dancing around the topic, if you or anyone disagrees, please bring the strongest examples from AQ to refute my position. I will gladly take a look at them.peace Hoppean,
I disagree with your argument of "allegorical" and "figurative". A controlling force, e.g. F=ma, is literal to me, it literally exists, there is nothing allegorical or figurative about it. Its possible you are mixing some things, e.g. I see the story of adam/mankind as a parable, thus I have no problem if AQ describes things in this story in an allegorical or figurative manner.I say controlling forces, some which we know about, some which we do not, some not in our world etc, thus I do not know the function of every malaika, thus when you say what about malaika who know future events, talk to people etc then this is a non-point.
You say a verb needs an actor, then specifically say a concious actor... where did you get this definition from?
As a side note, it's been a while since I studied it, but can you cite a verse where one must believe in XYZ for "deen"? Thanks.
You first say
Thus, malaika (controllers) to figuratively describe the laws of nature creates a major problem, because we don't know what it literally means. What exactly are we believing in when we say "we believe in malaika"?
Then say
It is righteous to believe in angels precisely because they are unseen and unverifiable by our senses, or instruments. Thus, just as we believe in God, though He is unseen (and could never be seen), by believing in unseen angels with prefect faith we demonstrate that we trust in God with all our hearts.
An equation does not literally curse anyone.
See CD's post.
Again my point is to show that logically you must interpret malaika allegorically, as the laws of physics do not literally bear witness to anything
Wrong, see 4153, it all bears witness.
That's the whole point, these malaika that are taken as false gods and lords, are worshipped with the assumption that they are conscious actors and not simply formulas.
Their assumption is wrong, what is your point?
You say
I would like to emphasize that the crux of my argument is that to define malaika (controllers), in any sort of allegorical way, becomes nonsensical once we look at those verses which talk about necessary beliefs. All the other categories of faith are literal, not figurative, clear and unambiguous as to their meaning.
But already said
It is righteous to believe in angels precisely because they are unseen and unverifiable by our senses
Which is it clear and unambiguous OR unseen and unverifiable ?
-
Your claim is that "sun/moon/stars/rain/fire/etc" are "malaika". If at all your studies have involved the Quran, then present the verses where "malaika" has been applied to the the above. If you cannot find a verse to support your claim, I will accept another lame and evasive reply.
-
That's the whole point, these malaika that are taken as false gods and lords, are worshipped with the assumption that they are conscious actors and not simply formulas.
As for Angels/Malaika are concerned no one on Earth ever worshipped them. The evidence to this effect may be read in 3440-41.
-
While Parwez eschewed the M word completely in his exposition of 1231, he has tried a different approach for 68-9.
( These people also ask Why was an angel (malak ) whom we could see not sent down to this Rasool? If Allah had sent such a malak their doom would have been sealed and they would have had no respite.
Looks like he has given "force" the boot for this verse, and stuck to "angel".
(9) If a Malik had been sent down as a Rasool, he would have obviously come in human form. This would have aroused doubts similar to those which they now have.
Wonder how he received the privilege to tamper the text of the Quran and alter "Malak" to "Malik". (unless the website that put up the translation has made a typo).
What should we expect from Shabbir?
68 They ask, Why is not an angel sent down unto him (for them to see)? Well, if We did send down an angel, the matter would be judged at once. And no further time would be granted them after that.
69 And even if We sent an angel, We would certainly have made him in the form of a man. And We (per our Law) would have kept them just as confused as they are confused now.
Along the lines of 1231, Shabbir has expelled "the Universal Forces" and made peace with "angel".
Given the (unsustainable) hoopla they create elsewhere, this appears to be a grudging admission. While their plumbing for "angels" in these verses has no objective value, it does highlight a certain quirkiness in their approach.
Parwez's reference to Alraghib is ambiguous, and the translation of "Malakun" as "forces" (while quoting Alraghib) is unfounded and deceptive. If we reread what he quotes Alraghib as saying, without his own interpolation, the text comes out as this "Raghib says that Malaika, in fact, are the M'alakun who are given the responsibility to discharge certain duties." Plainly, Alraghib talked about "Malakun," and Parwez deceptively translated it as "forces," begging the question.
What makes their case particularly lamentable is the fact that even the Hebrew "Malak/Malach" does not open up an avenue for a fancy revision. In sum, Parwez's presumption provides no ground for renderings such as "forces," "laws," or "equations." And the way he has interpolated the Quran with his juicy tidbits gain him not a whit.
