Is God a Man?
-
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.
-
-
I would like to add a challenge to the mystics who oppose the anthropomorphic nature of God.
The verse is revealing, God went unto the mountain, this mean God is not omnipresent. So when he reached the mountain, the mountain was crushed. This proves God is contained within time and space. This is impossible for a mystical omnipresent God. See also God telling Moses, if the mountain stays, you WILL see me. If God was omnipresent and invisible by nature, he would have told Moses you can't see me not you WILL NOT. You CANT.
Peace.
WRONG CONCLUSION DUE TO LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OR INTENT TO MISGUIDE OTHERS knowingly.
7143 - ???" He said, "You cannot see Me. Look at that mountain; if it stays in its place, then you can see Me." .....
Clearly, the statement ?Look at that mountain; if it stays in its place, then you can see Me? is a CONDITIONAL STATEMENT (like IF argument is true THEN do this).
THE BOTTOM LINE The mountain did not stay in its place, therefore, the IF argument is FALSE, thus The God did not materialized.
THIS MEANS GOD IS OMNIPRESENT. YOU may not like it but that is the TRUTH.
-
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 red lines below are Rami's quotes
The Quran is disonnected from reality either way because of many other things.
No, your mind (brain) is disconnected from reality. Read and heed
7179 - We have committed to Hell multitudes of jinns and humans. They have minds with which they do not understand, eyes with which they do not see, and ears with which they do not hear. They are like animals; no, they are far worse - they are totally unaware
But how do you go around the solid dome of heaven that need gates to pass through,
Heavens consists of materials things e.g. human, angles, jinns, trees, etc. The gates are for them and Not for The God.
the flat earth that has a definite east and west locations,
7930 He made the earth egg-shaped.
As far as the inhabitants of Earth is concerned, we have definite east and west (line of sight limitation)
God sending a table from heaven to Jesus,
And your brain cannot comprehend this simple matter. He is sending something that he created not Himself. Materials do exist in Heavens, which does not mean The God is a material. What is wrong with your logic?
Jesus ascending to God(which destroys your concept),
Jesus is a material thing but not The God. What is the issue?
the throne of God was on the water(what metaphor is that???) Why water?
The Earth is contained in the innermost universe and it is covered with water. Therefore, His Throne is over it. No contradiction.
-
Peace,
No, your mind (brain) is disconnected from reality. Read and heed
7179 - We have committed to Hell multitudes of jinns and humans. They have minds with which they do not understand, eyes with which they do not see, and ears with which they do not hear. They are like animals; no, they are far worse - they are totally unawareIs that supposed to be a logical argument?
But how do you go around the solid dome of heaven that need gates to pass through,
Heavens consists of materials things e.g. human, angles, jinns, trees, etc. The gates are for them and Not for The God.
Only gates are needed to pass through solids, you can pass through fluids without gates. Physics.
7930 He made the earth egg-shaped.
A mistranslation of the new age muslims. All the early Islamic scholars and Arabic speakers didn't have this phony interpretation.
As far as the inhabitants of Earth is concerned, we have definite east and west (line of sight limitation)
Go read the story of the Zhul-Qarnayen again but without any pre-conceived notion. Hint 'balagha' means reached a place.
God sending a table from heaven to Jesus,
And your brain cannot comprehend this simple matter. He is sending something that he created not Himself. Materials do exist in Heavens, which does not mean The God is a material. What is wrong with your logic?
I am not talking about God here. I am saying why would the table come from space!!
Jesus ascending to God(which destroys your concept),
Jesus is a material thing but not The God. What is the issue?
The verse said that Jesus was raised unto God. If God is omnipresent, you are already unto God.
the throne of God was on the water(what metaphor is that???) Why water?
The Earth is contained in the innermost universe and it is covered with water. Therefore, His Throne is over it. No contradiction.
His throne is over it? We agree then. Funny, how all the ancient near eastern people knew this and all their mythologies are mutually exclusive.
Cheers.
-
Peace Guest,
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.
You are forming this conclusion based on a preconceived notion. In reality, you are GUESSING; you are not speaking from the bounds of "TRUTH" because you don't KNOW if your position is right or wrong... Here's something to reason on Assumptions do NOT equal facts. You're comparing His world to our world, when, in reality, they are the same thing. It wouldn't make sense for God, Who bases Himself on the bounds of truth and solidarity, to say that He made something with His "two hands," when He doesn't actually have two hands. That causes a paradox, or, worse, it forms the circular argument of trying to defend a "belief" (not a fact) in something that you don't know to be true... If you want to base your interpretation of this subject as being factual, then show us the place in the Qur'aan where it says that Allah has "metaphorical hands", "metaphorical eyes", a "metaphorical back", or any other metaphorical body parts. If you can't do this, then there's no way you can prove that the physical composition of Allah, as described in the Qur'aan, is not literal.
7143 - " He said, "You cannot see Me. Look at that mountain; if it stays in its place, then you can see Me." .....
Clearly, the statement Look at that mountain; if it stays in its place, then you can see Me is a CONDITIONAL STATEMENT (like IF argument is true THEN do this).
THE BOTTOM LINE The mountain did not stay in its place, therefore, the IF argument is FALSE, thus The God did not materialized.
THIS MEANS GOD IS OMNIPRESENT. YOU may not like it but that is the TRUTH.
Again, that is a paradoxical argument. If Allah is omnipresent, then what caused the mountain to crumble? In reality, mountains don't just crumble without explanation. There are a few reasons why the mountain may have crumbled, based on the implications in the Qur'aan, but all of them imply Him being a REAL BEING, possessing a physical body of some sort. I don't know how you reached the conclusion of "THIS MEANS GOD IS OMNIPRESENT." But your argument doesn't imply Allah's omnipresence at all; in fact, it doesn't even imply His omniscience, since, based on His statement of 'if this happens, then this will happen,' (i.e. 'if the mountain can stand it, then you can see me' then it appears as if He doesn't actually know whether or not Moses will be able see Him. Plus, it produces another major paradox. Why would Allah say that if the mountain remains, then Moses can SEE Him? That is a pointless statement if God is not a physical reality and/or if He's omnipresent, since it would be physically impossible for anybody to see (or detect) Allah, since He's everywhere. That's like me saying, "If you play this number in the lottery, then you'll win one million dollars!" That statement would be completely nonsensical if there was no real lottery, or if there was no way you could possibly win it. In order for Allah's statement to make sense, there would've had to have been some chance, however slight, that Moses could actually see God in a physical form.
Peace!
-
-
Peace all,
The people challenging the anthropomorphic nature of God are actually ATHEISTS in an indirect sense. Strong claim. Let me explain. The God that most believe in nowadays is absolute in every sense of the word. Absolutes are always abstract like the number zero or inifinity. Abstracts are ideas not found in reality. An atheist agrees that God is JUST an idea that has no relation to reality. If you are an absolutist, you already lost the argument because this is what you are actually saying but indirectly.
A real Theist will say that God is not just an idea but he is REAL. Real means that he is RELATIVE. The God in the Quran is relative. You can talk to him, you can influence him, you can have an appointment with him, he answers prayers, he sends messengers, he discusses about his creation, he feels angry, he swears by his creation, he likes, he hates, he appears, he writes, he debates, he gives examples. An absolute God won't even budge. He won't even create anything. He is not even a He. It is more of an it. It becomes only an idea.
Peace.
-
Peace Rami,
I agree wholeheartedly with what you say here. However you are now merely arguing semantics. Real does not mean relative in any way shape or form. The rule of physics is very REAL, indeed as REAL as it gets, but there is nothing "relative". It is absolute in very way concievable yet it does indeed create everything and it does supposedly send messengers, it does destroy things, you get the picture. You don't need to look at it from a human perspective to understand this. It created life before man was not worth mentioning (whether deterministically or not, that is completely irrelevant since the concept of free will does not even enter at this point).
Check out my response here, this is my conception of God as an "it" which is 100% in line with the quran and reality in my current mode of thinking.
He's everywhere. That's like me saying, "If you play this number in the lottery, then you'll win one million dollars!" That statement would be completely nonsensical if there was no real lottery, or if there was no way you could possibly win it. In order for Allah's statement to make sense, there would've had to have been some chance, however slight, that Moses could actually see God in a physical form.
The statement immediately converts to "you shall never see me" when you apply the rules of reality, how hard is it to comprehend this?
-
Peace OPF,
The statement immediately converts to "you shall never see me" when you apply the rules of reality, how hard is it to comprehend this?
Again, that concept is nonsensical. Why would Allah say, 'If this happens, then you'll see me,' if there's no possible way that Moses could see Him at all? That sounds pretty paradoxical to me, as well as implying a tremendous waste of words and energy. He may as well have just stuck with the "you can't see me" statement, since it makes a lot more sense based on what you're saying. Are you more knowledgeable that God?
By the way, the Qur'aanic story is strikingly similar to the Biblical story of Moses requesting to see Allah's face, and he was told that one can't see God's face and live. As an alternative, Allah showed Himself to a mountain, causing it to crumble, and He 'went past Moses', to the point of Moses seeing His "back". His back! What's God doing with a "BACK" if He doesn't have a front, or a physical composition at all?
It's not just the Qur'aan that forms that type of anthropomorphic presentation of Allah; it's the Bible too! In fact, all the ancient scriptures depicted the Almighty Supreme Being as having a physical body, even to the point of the Kabbalists making the statement, "Man is God on Earth, and God is Man in Heaven." These aren't symbolic or (metaphorically) metaphysical depictions; they're literal, physical descriptions of Allah, presented as having human-like features. The ancient people weren't confused on this issue, so why are you? Hell, the most adamant Islamic disputers of Allah's physicality that I've encountered are Sunni Muslims, and even they've been forced to acknowledge the parts of the hadiyths that speak of humans, in the hereafter, seeing Allah's "THIGH". At the very least, this shows that earlier Muslims, during the time of the hadiyth collections, believed that Allah had some type of physical form that included 'thighs'. The Wahhabi Muslims are at least on a realistic stance, confirming that Allah indeed has a physical body; but He is either too powerful for us to see with our physical eyes, or He is so far away from us (on the physical plane) that we can't detect Him. Either way, God's state of being "anthropomorphic" is without question. If you study the scriptures intently, then you will come to the same conclusion.
Peace!
-
Peace OPF,
Again, that concept is nonsensical. Why would Allah say, 'If this happens, then you'll see me,' if there's no possible way that Moses could see Him at all? That sounds pretty paradoxical to me, as well as implying a tremendous waste of words and energy. He may as well have just stuck with the "you can't see me" statement, since it makes a lot more sense based on what you're saying. Are you more knowledgeable that God?
Peace,
God is saying "You WILL not see me. However, look at the mountain. IF that mountain stays in its place THEN you will see me". These statements do not disagree and they are one after other. Is it a waste of words/energy to a God who commands an infinite number of words/energy? Not really. However Moses believes that God is anthropomorphic in some way and clearly not. Look at it from Moses' point of view, he asks the almighty to show himself, the almighty responds in that manner then BOOM, Moses is floored and knocked out. He wakes up to a powderised mountain and asks forgiveness of Allah. God can do what the hell he likes, you are asking me "are you more knowledgeable than God" and you are questioning why he put those words in that way in the first place, that is ridiculous and somewhat hypocritical.
I presume that Moses already knows in some way that Allah is not as such but he wants to be sure in the same way that a disbeliever thinks a "sign of God" must be a miracle. Hence the statement worded in such a way and the fact that he asks for repentance. In your lottery analogy, this would be akin to God saying "You cannot play this imaginary number in the REAL lottery. If you would like to see it for yourself, then play the lottery. If your imaginary number comes up, then you win a million dollars". Of course, Moses plays the imaginary number then realises he didn't win a million dollars.
By the way, the Qur'aanic story is strikingly similar to the Biblical story of Moses requesting to see Allah's face, and he was told that one can't see God's face and live. As an alternative, Allah showed Himself to a mountain, causing it to crumble, and He 'went past Moses', to the point of Moses seeing His "back". His back! What's God doing with a "BACK" if He doesn't have a front, or a physical composition at all?
I am not going to comment on biblical stories just as I care not for ahadeeth. There may be truth in them but I don't believe it is worth trawling through the falsehood.
It's not just the Qur'aan that forms that type of anthropomorphic presentation of Allah; it's the Bible too! In fact, all the ancient scriptures depicted the Almighty Supreme Being as having a physical body, even to the point of the Kabbalists making the statement, "Man is God on Earth, and God is Man in Heaven." These aren't symbolic or (metaphorically) metaphysical depictions; they're literal, physical descriptions of Allah, presented as having human-like features. The ancient people weren't confused on this issue, so why are you? Hell, the most adamant Islamic disputers of Allah's physicality that I've encountered are Sunni Muslims, and even they've been forced to acknowledge the parts of the hadiyths that speak of humans, in the hereafter, seeing Allah's "THIGH". At the very least, this shows that earlier Muslims, during the time of the hadiyth collections, believed that Allah had some type of physical form that included 'thighs'. The Wahhabi Muslims are at least on a realistic stance, confirming that Allah indeed has a physical body; but He is either too powerful for us to see with our physical eyes, or He is so far away from us (on the physical plane) that we can't detect Him. Either way, God's state of being "anthropomorphic" is without question. If you study the scriptures intently, then you will come to the same conclusion.
Peace!
That does not mean that an anthropomorphic deity is what exists in reality. Nor does it mean that ancient scriptures are interpreted correctly. Check out my post here as stated (http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600468.msg248924#msg248924).
-
Peace,
God is saying "You WILL not see me. However, look at the mountain. IF that mountain stays in its place THEN you will see me". These statements do not disagree and they are one after other. Is it a waste of words/energy to a God who commands an infinite number of words/energy? Not really. However Moses believes that God is anthropomorphic in some way and clearly not. Look at it from Moses' point of view, he asks the almighty to show himself, the almighty responds in that manner then BOOM, Moses is floored and knocked out. He wakes up to a powderised mountain and asks forgiveness of Allah. God can do what the hell he likes, you are asking me "are you more knowledgeable than God" and you are questioning why he put those words in that way in the first place, that is ridiculous and somewhat hypocritical.
its just that, for some reasons, God didn't want Moses to see Him! otherwise it is not difficult for God to make anyone able to see Him!