Is God a Man?
-
Figure of speech is when a word or phrase is used in a non-literal sense. Similar to these ayats
1671 And on some of you God has bestowed more abundant means of sustenance than on others and yet, they who are more abundantly favoured are unwilling to share their sustenance with those whom their right hands possess, so that they might be equal in this respect. Will they, then, God's blessings deny?
What possessions does one physically hold in their right hands? Is your house, bank account, vehicles, bonds, investments, assets etc held with the right hand. No it is a figure of speech.
1728 And if thou turn aside from those seeking to obtain thy Sustainer's grace and hoping for it, at least speak unto them with gentle speech.
1729 And neither allow thy hand to remain shackled to thy neck, nor stretch it forth to the utmost limit , lest thou find thyself blamed , or even destitute.
Was the hand physically shackled to the neck?
3355 it is no sin for them before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brothers? sons, or their sisters? sons, or their womenfolk, or such as their right hands may possess. But remain conscious of God - for, behold, God is witness unto everything.
Once again, are assets physically owned by the right hand? No it is a figure of speech.
3665 On that Day We shall set a seal on their mouths but their hands will speak unto Us, and their feet will bear witness to whatever they have earned .
Can hands speak? No. But on this occasion they physically will so it is not a figure of speech.
4126 NOW THOSE who are bent on denying the truth say ?Do not listen to this Qur?an, but rather talk frivolously about it, so that you might gain the upper hand!?
Which is the upper hand. The left or the right? And which is the lower hand?
Rami my friend, you must learn to differentiate between literal and metaphorical statements within the correct context. When God mentions creating with His hand or having the dominions resting in His hands or rolling up the heavens with His hand, are all figures of speech and not some secret message indirectly telling mankind that God is really a man. And yes you are right, this is an age old argument where Muslims believe and accept that God is like no other, and non Muslims believe God is man incarnate.
Anyway, I'm done on this subject.
Peace
I don't deny the above mentioned examples of figure of speech. What about God coming to the mountain?
Plus it doesn't have to be God is a MAN but God is indeed limited in time and space. Otherwise, he can't act, hear or speak.
-
Peace Rami,
I would like to add a challenge to the mystics who oppose the anthropomorphic nature of God.
Read the following verse
So when Moses came to Our appointed time, and his Lord spoke to him, he said "My Lord, let me look upon you." He said "You will not see Me, but look upon the mountain, if it stays in its place then you will see Me." So when his Lord revealed Himself to the mountain, He caused it to crumble; thus Moses fell unconscious. When he awoke, he said "Glory be to You, I repent to You and I am the first of those who believe."
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.
I was just getting ready to address this, bro. That passage, if nothing else, PROVES that Allah must have some type of physical form, within the realm of time and space. He can't "go to the mountain" if He's OMNIPRESENT - that doesn't make any sense. He can't speak to Moses if He's not a real Being. If He's some type of unreal entity, how could He appoint prophets and messengers? How could He send angels? How could He author books? In order to do that, One must be REAL.
On the issue of nothing being "comparable" to Allah, that must be seen in context. Allah is referred to as the "BEST KNOWER", implying that He has KNOWLEDGE. Now, does that mean humans are incapable of attaining knowledge, since this would make them comparable to God? Absolutely not! It simply means they can't reach the highest point of knowledge, having the knowledge of everything. Allah is referred to as being "merciful". Does that mean humans can't show mercy? The ruler in Egypt was even referred to in the Qur'aan as "rabb"/lord. Does that mean he is comparable to Allah, simply because they are both "lords"? The answer is an emphatic NO! That man is not comparable to God, being that he can never reach the level or supremacy of God. He can have some of the same characteristics and physical traits - he just can't manifest the supreme qualities of Allah on the same magnitude. There is nothing in the Qur'aan that says, or even implies, that Allah doesn't have a physical body.
Peace!
-
Peace Rami,
I was just getting ready to address this, bro. That passage, if nothing else, PROVES that Allah must have some type of physical form, within the realm of time and space. He can't "go to the mountain" if He's OMNIPRESENT - that doesn't make any sense. He can't speak to Moses if He's not a real Being. If He's some type of unreal entity, how could He appoint prophets and messengers? How could He send angels? How could He author books? In order to do that, One must be REAL.
On the issue of nothing being "comparable" to Allah, that must be seen in context. Allah is referred to as the "BEST KNOWER", implying that He has KNOWLEDGE. Now, does that mean humans are incapable of attaining knowledge, since this would make them comparable to God? Absolutely not! It simply means they can't reach the highest point of knowledge, having the knowledge of everything. Allah is referred to as being "merciful". Does that mean humans can't show mercy? The ruler in Egypt was even referred to in the Qur'aan as "rabb"/lord. Does that mean he is comparable to Allah, simply because they are both "lords"? The answer is an emphatic NO! That man is not comparable to God, being that he can never reach the level or supremacy of God. He can have some of the same characteristics and physical traits - he just can't manifest the supreme qualities of Allah on the same magnitude. There is nothing in the Qur'aan that says, or even implies, that Allah doesn't have a physical body.
Peace!
Total rubbish. The pantheistic concept of God works very well within the quran.
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.
Don't talk rubbish. "Can not" and "will not" are identical statements in the limiting case where they meet (e.g. you CAN NOT travel faster than the speed of light, you WILL NOT travel faster than the speed of light). It does not say anywhere that God translated his physical location to the mountain, it merely implies that the mountain got an increased presence of God within that region and owing to that, it crumbled. That does not change the fact that God is all-pervading in the least, in the same manner that if you have an all pervasive electric field and you increase the intensity of the electric field in some region of space, the entire electric field is not suddenly localised to that space.
2435 Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth; a likeness of His light is as a niche in which is a lamp, the lamp is in a glass, (and) the glass is as it were a brightly shining star, lit from a blessed olive-tree, neither eastern nor western, the oil whereof almost gives light though fire touch it not-- light upon light-- Allah guides to His light whom He pleases, and Allah sets forth parables for men, and Allah is Cognizant of all things.
This verse alone shows that an anthropomorphic concept of God does not work within the framework of the quran. The closest concept is panentheism.
He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.
-
Total rubbish. The pantheistic concept of God works very well within the quran.
Don't talk rubbish. "Can not" and "will not" are identical statements in the limiting case where they meet (e.g. you CAN NOT travel faster than the speed of light, you WILL NOT travel faster than the speed of light). It does not say anywhere that God translated his physical location to the mountain, it merely implies that the mountain got an increased presence of God within that region and owing to that, it crumbled. That does not change the fact that God is all-pervading in the least, in the same manner that if you have an all pervasive electric field and you increase the intensity of the electric field in some region of space, the entire electric field is not suddenly localised to that space.
This verse alone shows that an anthropomorphic concept of God does not work within the framework of the quran. The closest concept is panentheism.
Your concept is Platonic and more closer to Hinduism. All ancient near eastern religions had the concept of an anthropomorphic God...almost all of the prominent Jewish sages and early Muslim scholars agreed on that concept....it was the influence of the Greeks that made this concept repulsive to the minds of the so called 'reasonable' thinkers like the 'Mutazilites' and Maimonides and most Muslims and Jews today.
-
Your concept is Platonic and more closer to Hinduism. All ancient near eastern religions had the concept of an anthropomorphic God...almost all of the prominent Jewish sages and early Muslim scholars agreed on that concept....it was the influence of the Greeks that made this concept repulsive to the minds of the so called 'reasonable' thinkers like the 'Mutazilites' and Maimonides and most Muslims and Jews today.
Cool story, bro. What does this have to do with the quran?
-
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