Is God a Man?
-
Look, you seem tense. It is OK believing either way. It is a mutashabih as you said so its not a big deal.
It is not OK believing either way. Suppose for a fleeting second, that the quran is actually the word of our eternal creator. It is a common technique of disbelievers who wish to cloud the truth to interpret the quran in such a way that renders it inconsistent with reality. This caricature of the quran is then declared to be "Islam" and "logically" shown to be evident bullshit. All the while, the real quran is never changed and never will be. The only difference is that there is a disruption of the peace and some naive people are led astray by the words of a few bullshitters.
Stop trying to dodge the argument. There is no place for such an anthropomorphic concept in the quran.
-
It is not OK believing either way. Suppose for a fleeting second, that the quran is actually the word of our eternal creator. It is a common technique of disbelievers who wish to cloud the truth to interpret the quran in such a way that renders it inconsistent with reality. This caricature of the quran is then declared to be "Islam" and "logically" shown to be evident bullshit. All the while, the real quran is never changed and never will be. The only difference is that there is a disruption of the peace and some naive people are led astray by the words of a few bullshitters.
Stop trying to dodge the argument. There is no place for such an anthropomorphic concept in the quran.
The Quran is disonnected from reality either way because of many other things. So its not your concept of pantheism that will save the Quran from the harsh criticisms coming from the Atheists/Agnostics/Deists. I understand why you can't accept the anthropomorphic nature of God. But how do you go around the solid dome of heaven that need gates to pass through, the flat earth that has a definite east and west locations, God sending a table from heaven to Jesus, Jesus ascending to God(which destroys your concept), the throne of God was on the water(what metaphor is that???) Why water? Primitive people thought water to be the most abundant because it surrounds them and because they thought its above the sky. Other ideas like water comes from heaven, snow comes from the mountains, a pieces of the sky can fall down, the Earth and the sky were joined(a common creation myth), the angels, the Jinn etc etc etc. How in the name of Zeus butthole did you rationalize all this?!?!?
-
The Quran is disonnected from reality either way because of many other things. So its not your concept of pantheism that will save the Quran from the harsh criticisms coming from the Atheists/Agnostics/Deists. I understand why you can't accept the anthropomorphic nature of God. But how do you go around the solid dome of heaven that need gates to pass through, the flat earth that has a definite east and west locations, God sending a table from heaven to Jesus, Jesus ascending to God(which destroys your concept), the throne of God was on the water(what metaphor is that???) Why water? Primitive people thought water to be the most abundant because it surrounds them and because they thought its above the sky. Other ideas like water comes from heaven, snow comes from the mountains, a pieces of the sky can fall down, the Earth and the sky were joined(a common creation myth), the angels, the Jinn etc etc etc. How in the name of Zeus butthole did you rationalize all this?!?!?
These are indeed very good questions that I suppose challenge the divinity of the quran. I don't rationalise anything however; I am far gone past that stage and indeed if atheism is the logical truth then I'd accept that. However I retain faith that these probably don't need to be rationalised whatsoever and their truth will eventually be evident because that has proven so in the past. The main reason being that the majority of quranic interpretation has been carried out by hadeethists who never had a basis in reality to begin with and so most of the contradictory rubbish in the quran comes from their deception. In essence, I believe what I know for sure and suspend disbelief in the rest until a later time.
Note that all those things that appear to contradict still do not have anything to do with living life in the here and now. The quranic way of life is very nice to say the least.
In addition, a pantheistic God can do any damn thing "he" pleases regardless of if it disagrees with your limited knowledge of what God can and cannot do.
-
These are indeed very good questions that I suppose challenge the divinity of the quran. I don't rationalise anything however; I am far gone past that stage and indeed if atheism is the logical truth then I'd accept that. However I retain faith that these probably don't need to be rationalised whatsoever and their truth will eventually be evident because that has proven so in the past. The main reason being that the majority of quranic interpretation has been carried out by hadeethists who never had a basis in reality to begin with and so most of the contradictory rubbish in the quran comes from their deception. In essence, I believe what I know for sure and suspend disbelief in the rest until a later time.
Note that all those things that appear to contradict still do not have anything to do with living life in the here and now. The quranic way of life is very nice to say the least.
In addition, a pantheistic God can do any damn thing "he" pleases regardless of if it disagrees with your limited knowledge of what God can and cannot do.
I find your faith refreshing. peace
-
Dear Ahmad Bilal and Rami,
I would like to say something to you people and I don't mean to be mean or condescending. So I do hope you two will take this in a good and positive way.
Have u ever heard the expression "Can't see the forest for the trees"? It means you're so stuck on a small point that you've missed the big picture. Is it that important that God has 2 hands? And is this your sole basis for God being anthropomorphic?
Because you guys, and I'm assuming you're guys, appear to be stuck. Because when the Qur'an says God revealed himself to the mountain, and the keyword is REVEALED, it did not say God physically walked up the mountain or physically went to the mountain. It just says revealed and revealed could mean it was always there, just hidden. Behind a veil, except we don't know what the veil looks like. Have you heard of string theory? It's the physics of tying everything together. And, according to the mathematics of string theory there is something like 11 dimensions that exist side by side in this universe. We live in the 3rd dimension. But, according to the math, other dimensions exist. We just can't see it. At least not yet because we don't know under what veil it's hidden under. It's like bacteria and viruses. It used to be hidden from us until we found the right tools to unveil it. Now this is pure speculation but what if God uses one of these dimensions to be everywhere? By the way, why do you think the mountain crumbled?
Now, I'd like to address verse 1124 There is none like unto him. You compared this to this verse "And the blind and seeing are NOT ALIKE (laa yastawii)." (Q. 3519). The keywords are "None like" and "Not Alike". "Not alike" means there are similarities but there are differences but there ARE similarities. "None like" means there are NO similarities what so ever. Why there no similarities is actually quite simple. You keep describing God like he is subject to time and space. Yet God, created time and space. So time and space is subject to God and not vice versa. Humans always like to put a limited understanding on God when God is without limits. So I ask you, can you imagine something or someone that exists outside of time? Because whatever you imagine cannot be true because whatever you imagined for that moment existed within time within your mind, and therefore is not anything of what God is truly like. That's why there is none like unto him. God is unique. God alone can be in a juxtaposition where nothing else can. God does not obey the laws of physics or math. They obey him.
Can God take a physical form? Of course he can. But why would he? If he does, he opens up a whole can of worms called shirik. The real question is not does he have a physical form. The real question is if God does take on a physical form what would be the consequences of such an action? Because God does not want us to commit shirik. So if God does take on a physical form then that leaves us open to shirik because how would we know if that physical entity was truly God? So if God doesn't want us to commit shirik why would he commit to a physical form?
One of the main reasons I'm a muslim is because both Christianity and Islam talk about not committing idolatry. But when Jesus comes into play in Christianity we have this gray area of whether worshiping Jesus is idolatry or not. Is he god? Is he not god? Is it idolatry to worship him? Is it not? Do I know he's God or not? Is he just the son of God or is he God incarnate? etc, etc, etc...
But the Qur'an solves this problem and eliminates any gray area because we can't even imagine God. So why would you want to attribute a physical form to God when that could possibly lead you to the greatest sin in the Qur'an which is shirik?Again I don't mean any disrespect to either of you. I just hope I helped you see the big picture.
Assalamwa'alaikum
-
If I may, the use of "He" in Semetic texts is a case of grammatical propriety. English is not gender specific... "al Lah" is "the Creator" ..."the Deity" and is not a human at all. This may have been touched on previously but, you know.... I go to the last page and see that people are still tossing it around and decide to add my two cents, if I think it may help at all.
In Isa's language, Aramaic ....the word "spirit" is actually feminine in gender and can be correctly translated as so, wherever the book says "spirit".
We're dealing with a philosophy, here. Thought turned into word.... or "logos"...... the manifested will. Light painted on a canvas of darkness. Spirit... body.
Al Lah is "Lord" over all of that, if we are to base our religion in "Abrahamic" concepts.
-
I believe that Allah is the Supreme Person, and I take the Qur'an rather literally... I do not understand why is it so hard to accept that Allah has a transcendental body! It says clearly that Allah has two hands, that He has a throne, that He has a face, etc. But that only shows that Allah is limitless and beyond our human comprehension or mortality. He is the Supreme Lord and the Supreme Person, with unlimited features and full of variegatedness.
I used to believe in metaphors... but I accept the Qur'an as a revelation from Allah alone, and whatever He says, is.
-
Arm Leg Leg Arm Head
Sounds a bit like what the 5%ers believe!
I always thought that was a funny thing actually because You use that to say anything! its also funny because Allah is not an English word yet they have added English Words (Arm,Leg,Head) and tried to attribute it to the ENGLISH translation of an ARABIC word.
That doesnt make much sense to me.It would be like the Letter "M" on every human's Palm. I've hears some say that it stands for "Muslim" yet Muslim is an ARABIC word therefore the "M" theory is impossible. its cute, but impossible.
If we are to believe in Human Evolution, How could Allah be a Man? Allah was before the before and will be after the after.
He was not Born from a Female nor Male, so It seems Highley Illogical to say Allah is a Man.
Look at a Male Chromosome, Male Bilogoly, etc.... It seems ultimately ridiculous to think God is Man. -
How is this 'body' omnipresent? I certainly must have missed it.
How do you take 679? If 'face' is indeed always literal..We must understand that The Quran is to be read/understood by humans. Humans who have two hands, a face...
By saying that Allah can't have a face, one is already limiting Allah's unlimited attributes. I did say that Allah's body is transcendent after all, did I not? I made no reference whatsoever that Allah's body is mortal, fleshly, or whatever. His body is a spiritual body, and as such it has been revealed in the Qur'an very plainly.
I am not very intelligent, I know that's for sure. But when something is said in the Qur'an, I try to accept it in its plainness as much as possible, unless it is clearly made into a metaphor or simile.
-
the reference to "two hands" in 3875 is unrelated to the reference in 564 cuz in 564, the words come as an answer to the disbelievers who had said Allah's hands are tied up, to which Allah says "sorry dudes...that is not the case". 3875 is simply metaphorical in nature. 1124 clearly states that "walam ya kulla hu kufu wan ahad"...meaning that "there is nothing like him" so any image or picture of Allah that comes to human mind is simply "false". He has not made us to comprehend this.
This example given by OP is the same as when christians pick up a verse from the bible (John 316) that reads "God so loved the world that he gave his only son" and take it as a literal son of God...while there are many verses in the bible that calls Jesus as "son of man" and that "jesus submitted himself to God" (John 530) which simply is a NO to his alleged co-equal nature with God.
-
Actually, not all Christians believe the literal sense of Jesus being God or being God's literal offspring.
They say that even Constantine accepted Christianity, finally, only under a "Book Only" sort of condition.I'm going to post a link in here about the lost gospels.
I encourage everyone to watch the movie... it's very good, in fact. -
The rejection of the idea that God is the primary physical being stems from the desire that some people want God to be the only eternal entity which according to scripture is false. God created the heavens and the earth only. He didn't create the waters. It was always there. So the primeval waters were eternal too. The beginning was marked by the first action of this physical being on the eternal matter.
The reason why we must serve God is because he is the true owner of the universe. It is his property reflecting his fruit of labor.
This also explains why Muslims must purge the rejectors from the Holy Land. A kingdom can have traitors who serve other false kings(taghoot) but this cannot be tolerated in the Capital of the Universe.
The false kings are false because they didn't contribute to the creation of the universe. It is a copyright issue. D
-
Humans are described as having been created in God's image.
Without getting lost in semantics, I think we can agree that we are able to understand God with human conceptsThe tide moves in, the tide moves out... just like we breathe.
The constellations are arranged in shapes that can be likened to creatures here on Earth.
Their movement tells stories that are the basis of traditions within all cultures and every atom on the planet was once a part of a star or some other celestial body. So the scientists have deduced.But to turn it around and allow our own constructs to become the basis of our understanding of God is futile
....and, not really with the program. In fact, I think this is probably where "idolatry" or "blasphemy" come into play. -
Peace "alienayt"!
Arm Leg Leg Arm Head
Sounds a bit like what the 5%ers believe!
I don't think that concept of "ALLAH" is overly farfetched at all. In actuality, the 5%ers (in the "Nation of Gods and Earths" have a philosophy very similar to Sufi'ism. They know that the word "Allah" is not really an English-based acronym. They simply use it as a teaching tool, to help their members understand that Allah resides in a physical body that contains arms, legs, and a head. In fact, based on the Qur'aanic passage regarding Allah blowing His spirit (or "self" into Adam, they say that God is within Man, making Man the physical manifestation of God... In my opinion, that's not too unreasonable...
Peace "dhikr",
I believe that Allah is the Supreme Person, and I take the Qur'an rather literally... I do not understand why is it so hard to accept that Allah has a transcendental body! It says clearly that Allah has two hands, that He has a throne, that He has a face, etc. But that only shows that Allah is limitless and beyond our human comprehension or mortality. He is the Supreme Lord and the Supreme Person, with unlimited features and full of variegatedness.
I used to believe in metaphors... but I accept the Qur'an as a revelation from Allah alone, and whatever He says, is.
I agree with you, to an extent. I don't believe that Allah is beyond our comprehension. I simply believe that He is beyond our developmental reach. In other words, we can become "like" God, manifesting His qualities and becoming His designated "khalifaat"/successors; but we can never become the Almighty God, since His knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and power will always exceed ours. Therefore, in a sense, I regard Allah as being the Supreme Man, being the highest form of physical and mental development in the Universe. Since He is manifested within everything in the Universe, which is constantly expanding and progressing, we can never reach Him; He will always be beyond us, which is what makes Him "supreme" and "almighty".
Peace "Rami",
The rejection of the idea that God is the primary physical being stems from the desire that some people want God to be the only eternal entity which according to scripture is false. God created the heavens and the earth only. He didn't create the waters. It was always there. So the primeval waters were eternal too. The beginning was marked by the first action of this physical being on the eternal matter.
This is very true. The scriptures depict the "waters" as being eternally present and infinite. This sounds very similar to the ancient theologies of the original cultures, who used to teach that God was "self-created" from the primordial waters, meaning He, one way or another, came from them. This idea is expressed in ancient Babylonian, Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian (Kemetic), Nubian, Indian, and Eastern Asian cultures. They all say nearly the same thing, even though they're millions of miles apart! I don't think this is coincidental at all... According to them, "time" is relative, based on the action of the manifested God, Who shaped His body with all of the said features and then modeled humanity after His own form. They teach that "time" began when God separated Himself from these primordial waters; He made a throne, and He sat Himself on top of these waters, supposedly done right after building everything else around Him. Now, with the exception of a few details, this story sound very similar to the Biblical and Qur'aanic stories concerning Allah, especially the concept of Him 'placing His throne on the waters' directly after His creation of the Universe. It also explains the concept of why Allah is called "the first and the last". The word "first" denotes a presence or a developmental formation; something can't be "first" if it was always present, since that introduces a paradox (the first what?). It implies that Allah was the first One in existence, and this existence was triggered by something else. It goes hand-in-hand with the word "last" - it doesn't mean that God will necessarily endure forever; it simply implies that He will outlast everything else in existence.
If Allah is described in these factors in the Qur'aan, it doesn't necessarily mean that He is a Man; but it undoubtedly implies that He has a physical form, most likely one similar to the human body (i.e. having two eyes, two hands, arms, thighs, a back, a face, etc.) since it is the most developed of all the other creatures.
Peace!
-
The other qualities of God described in the quran contradict certain concepts you have stated. When it is said in the quran that God has created the "heavens and the earth", water is part and parcel. Additionally the reference extends to beyond water alone, IIRC this term tends to refer to the universe as a whole.
One has to also relate these conceptual definitions of the creator to what is around us in reality, it does not suffice to ramble on philosophically when you could be weaving yourself an intricate web of lies for no just ends.
You have to understand one thing, space and time are fundamentally interconnected via the fact that the speed of light is what mediates every interaction between anything. There is no such thing as time in reality in the manner in which we percieve it and Allah in the quran knew this very well (325); the reality is that space/time is a shape (manifold) containing "events" and all events are relative to each other but they can be placed in order. If you believe first and last means "first point in time" and "last point in time" then you will have to come to the conclusion that "Allah" might not be eternal. However from a realistic perspective this could only mean the first and last events which is a very different story in which there is indeed much room for eternity.
-
Peace OPF,
The other qualities of God described in the quran contradict certain concepts you have stated. When it is said in the quran that God has created the "heavens and the earth", water is part and parcel. Additionally the reference extends to beyond water alone, IIRC this term tends to refer to the universe as a whole.
One has to also relate these conceptual definitions of the creator to what is around us in reality, it does not suffice to ramble on philosophically when you could be weaving yourself an intricate web of lies for no just ends.
You have to understand one thing, space and time are fundamentally interconnected via the fact that the speed of light is what mediates every interaction between anything. There is no such thing as time in reality in the manner in which we percieve it and Allah in the quran knew this very well (325); the reality is that space/time is a shape (manifold) containing "events" and all events are relative to each other but they can be placed in order. If you believe first and last means "first point in time" and "last point in time" then you will have to come to the conclusion that "Allah" might not be eternal. However from a realistic perspective this could only mean the first and last events which is a very different story in which there is indeed much room for eternity.
This certainly raises the question of God being "eternal". How long is "eternity"? I believe that Allah is REAL. Everything in reality is formed on the basis of cause and effect. Therefore, if Allah is REAL, then He had to come from somewhere; there's no such thing as something or someone "always being here/there" - that concept doesn't exist in reality. So, where did God come from? What caused Him, and how long has He been present?
There are too many factors in the Qur'aan to overlook when it comes to Allah's "realness". For example, the scripture said that He says "Be," and things come into existence. Well, how can God "SPEAK", or say anything, if He doesn't exist in reality? It says that He talked to Iblis. So, who is Iblis, and where did he come from? In order for him to speak to God, he and God must both be real people. The word used in the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic writings concerning the reality of God (Allah) was "ruach", which meant spirit/breath. This force couldn't exist without a physical body to inhabit, and the Qur'aan says that Allah blew this "ruach" into Adam. So, who is Adam?
And, finally, when the scriptures, at least the ancient ones, referred to "the waters", it wasn't talking about the composition of the Earthly waters like seas, lakes, and oceans. It was referring to primordial waters, which, theoretically, consume the total measure of the Universe. They don't necessarily refer to literal "waters" as we know them; they simply refer to the abundant energy forces within the bounds of Nature, being the infinite "source" of everything, including God Himself. The Qur'aan promotes an idea similar to this as well, saying that Allah created every (living) thing from "water". Well, what water was it referring to? The Atlantic and/or Pacific Ocean? The Nile River? The Dead Sea? WHAT WATER? Where did this "water" come from? The Qur'aan doesn't say. In fact, based on it's explicit doctrine of Allah shaping the heavens and the Earth, one would think that the "waters" were already present, since the book never mentioned Allah creating or establishing them. NOT EVEN ONCE. The first act concerning these "waters" was Allah placing His throne on them... Do you think this is coincidental?
I guess the most significant question on this issue is Do you believe that Allah is "real", or is He "unreal"? People make the claim that God is a reality, yet they say that He can't be seen, heard, smelt, touched, tasted, or even imagined! So, how do you know that He exists? The answer is He CAN be seen, heard, smelt, touched, and (if that's your thing) tasted. He exists in reality. That's the only way that it makes sense for Him to 'show Himself to a mountain' - He has to be in one place at one time, not incorporeal. He must be real Person. Basing the concept of God as being incorporeal provokes the assumption that He is the Universe itself, all-encompassing and infinite. Do you believe that to be the case?
Peace!
-
Peace to AB and other contributor of this thread,
If you accept these as facts
-
1785 - They ask you about the revelation. Say, "The revelation comes from my Lord. The knowledge given to you is minute."
-
Human languages including Arabic is ambiguous (limited)
Then a possible answer to most of the issues/concerns raised in this thread could be this
The God can map info he wants to convey to us very efficiently from His domain to our limited domain for our understanding i.e. in His domain hands does not apply to Him.
The reverse is not possible because we do not have the knowledge. It is futile attempt to try to do the reverse mapping simply because The God has already told us that our knowledge is limited.
-