3:7 A MATTER OF PUNCTUATION MARKS. WHICH IS CORRECT?

marie

Peace brother Zlatan, all,

Peace dear ayman, all

The verb "ta'awiluh" is referring to a singular masculine while "ayat mutashabihat" is plural feminine. The ONLY singular masculine object in the sentence is "al-kitab" (the book). Hence, "ta'awiluh" must refer to "al-kitab" and NOT to "ayat mutashabihat".

If ?ma tashabaha min hu(masc, sing)? refers to ?Ayatun mutashabihatun(fem,plur.)?, we should read ?ma tashabaha min(ha") (fem, sing) or ?ma tashabaha minhunna"(fem, plur) and ?ibtighaa alfitnati waibtighaa ta/weeliha" (fem, sing) or "ta/weelihinna" (fem, plur) ? instead of ?ta/weelihi (masc, sing)?

Personally, I don?t attribute the same meaning to ?Ayatun mutashabihatun / the similar sign? and ?ma tashabaha min hu / the false meaning?

See also the meaning of the word ?shubbiha / it appeared so? in 4157

I consider the quran does not contain any ambiguity.

Allah knows best

Marie

unknownuser

PEACE MARIE AND ALL

Personally, I don?t attribute the same meaning to ?Ayatun mutashabihatun / the similar sign? and ?ma tashabaha min hu / the false meaning?

See also the meaning of the word ?shubbiha / it appeared so? in 4157

I consider the quran does not contain any ambiguity.

Good point, Marie. Al-Quran cannot contain any ambiguity, because Allah, repeatedly, refers to it as the clear Book, hence, as you say, mutashabatun, cannot mean vague, unclear, ambiguous for that would constitute a contradiction. Mutashabatun, as you say, means similar/alike

270 They said Call on your Lord for our sake to make it plain to us what she is, for surely to us the cows are all alike, and if Allah please we shall surely be guided aright.

270 Qaloo odAAu lana rabbaka yubayyin lana ma hiya inna albaqara tashabaha AAalayna wa-inna in shaa Allahu lamuhtadoon

6141 And He it is Who produces gardens (of vine), trellised and untrellised, and palms and seed-produce of which the fruits are of various sorts, and olives and pomegranates, like and unlike; eat of its fruit when it bears fruit, and pay the due of it on the day of its reaping, and do not act extravagantly; surely He does not love the extravagant.

6141 Wahuwa allathee anshaa jannatin maAArooshatin waghayra maAArooshatin waalnnakhla waalzzarAAa mukhtalifan okuluhu waalzzaytoona waalrrummana mutashabihan waghayra mutashabihin kuloo min thamarihi itha athmara waatoo haqqahu yawma hasadihi wala tusrifoo innahu la yuhibbu almusrifeena

These ayats uses mutashabatun, to mean alike/similar, hence, how can it be any different with 37?

Zlatan

Peace Marie, Priest all

Marie wrote

If ma tashabaha min hu(masc, sing) refers to Ayatun
mutashabihatun(fem,plur.), we should read ma tashabaha min(ha") (fem,
sing) or ma tashabaha minhunna"(fem, plur) and ibtighaa alfitnati
waibtighaa ta/weeliha" (fem, sing) or "ta/weelihinna" (fem, plur)
instead of ta/weelihi (masc, sing)

these observations are very incorect grammaticaly ... not only from the point of view of arabic language but judging by other languages as well..at least few that i am familiar with... the first three of the objections contains also big logical incorrectness..i am sure it was in haste so i ll not comment it...i would just comment the grammatical part...

it is not unusuall in arabic, as well as in other languages(not sure for franch) to describe or to reffer to the same entity with the terms differing in their gender and number....

Luckily, or due to the surplus of the similar cases, immediately after i have read your post i come upon upon the verse which has almost the same shift or switch in genders while still reffering to the same entity like 37.....

Its 17/33, it says
?wa la taqtuloo nafsa(fem) lleti(fem) harramallahu illa bil haqqi wa man(masc) qutile(masc) mazlooman fa qad ja`alnaa li waliyyihi(masc) sultanan?

And do not kill the person(fem) which(fem) the god has made forbiden except rightfully, so whoever(masc.)is killed with injustice then we have already gave to his(masc) protector authority to kill...

It is not gramaticaly incorrect to reffer to ayatun mutashabihatun/ambiguous utterances (fem) with ?ma tashabaha(masc) /min hu/??what is ambiguous /of the book/?...its like saying the part that/which is ambiguous where the part not necessarily has to be of the same gender as ayatun....so the pronoun hi(masc) in ?taweelihi? could validly reffer to the ambigous part of the book or more precisely to what is ambigous of the book(masc), that is, back to ambiguous signs/utterances inspite they being of female gender...

Just like in 17/33 where at first killing of the person is proclaimed as forbiden in female gender(nafsal-letii) , and after that the example of killing of the person is given in the male gender(fa man kutila) and finaly the killing is allowed to protector of the killed in the case of just retaliation once again with reffering to the same entity by the male pronoun hi(waliyyihi-his protector)

Personally, I dont attribute the same meaning to Ayatun mutashabihatun
/ the similar sign and ma tashabaha min hu / the false meaning

Yes, i was aware of it...The same understanding is hold by aidid saffar and i am still pondering over it... however it essentially doesnt differ much from my current understanding presented at this thread or this forum generally....currently i found it gramatically suspicious, more complicated, and less competent or capable of connecting all the points of the passage into a consistent structure... (maybe ill elaborate on this detaily later in this thread)

See also the meaning of the word shubbiha / it appeared so in 4157

Yes i know about that meaning...however, its irrelevant to the discussion cause one of the valid meanings of shbh or its derivatives in arabic is ambiguity.... btw ?it was made vague or ambiguous to them?(shubbiha lehum) would fit even better, particularly because of the continuation ?wa innaladhina khtalafoo fihi la fee shakkin min hu, ma lehum bi hi min `ilmin?-translated
?those who differed in regards of it were truly in doubt in regards of it, they possesed no knowledge in regards of it...?

It was made vague or ambiguous to them.....they were really in doubt, and they possesed no knowledge...
But nevertheless its irrlevant oto the topic cause one root can have more meanings be it related or even not related....

I consider the quran does not contain any ambiguity.

To denie ambiguity in the book is to denie the book itself...theres a lot of ambigity in the book...and theres so many examples of it that i found it redundant to cite it to someone who study the book daily like you..... of course the book as a whole isnt ambiguous....representing or leading parts of book are its decisive or precise statements...and in their light ambiguous stuff is clarified...

Best wishes, Zlatan

PRIEST_BOKMEI wrote

Good point, Marie. Al-Quran cannot contain any ambiguity, because Allah,
repeatedly, refers to it as the clear Book, hence, as you say,
mutashabatun, cannot mean vague, unclear, ambiguous for that would
constitute a contradiction.

Arent we used to say that sentences of the gods book explain each other...
Is that a contradiction too?

Is it smart to say that since sentences are clear thers no need for their explanation?

And if there`s no ambiguity why we need other sentences to explain each other?

The God`s book is made in the human language and one of its main characteristics is ambiguity....every word writen or spoken contains a lot of ambiguity...

Mutashabatun, as you say, means
similar/alike

270 They said.

6141 And He it is Who produces

These ayats uses mutashabatun, to mean alike/similar, hence, how can it be any different with 37?

A word can have one or more then one valid meanings ...they may be releated and they may be totaly unrelated... this is an inherent feature of arabic and a few other languages i am familiar with.. and it wouldnt make me wonder if thats the case with all the languages....

Similarity, ambiguity and vaguenes are very related notions and the former produces and creates the (two) later...so there`s no big deal in the fact that all these meanings are attached to the same root or word.....this particular ramification is maybe(and maybe not) due to the particularities of the paradigm(6th form of the verbs) in which root shbh is used in 3/7 and all the possible meanings this paradigm offers.....( ill look up into gramar book to check and maybe inform you later of my findings)

And the reason why i think the meaning of mutashabihat in 3/7 is ambiguous or undecisive is because of the context of the passage and the context of the book as a whole...

In 3/7 the mutashabihat is contrasted with muhkamat which means tightened, perfected, strong, restrained, decisive, precise utterances or signs, and consequently mutashabihat is best rendered as ambiguous or undecisive or unrestrained sayings....prone to differing interpretations as to their meaning ....
This is abused by those in whose hearts is a deviation... .

Instead of following precise sayings, clear of themselves, which are leading part of the book and which need not interpretations, they follow ambiguos part by seeking to mislead or to make discord and seeking to interpret it, while its interpretation is known only to the God, that is , the sayings of the book are only allowed to be interpreted or explained by its other sayings which solely and exclusively represent the god....

make sense to me...

Best wishes, Zlatan

marie

Salam br Zlatan,

I understand your reasonning, but I think the word "ta/weelihi" at the end of the verse refers to the book usually.
Ta/weel of the book will come in the light of 752-53.

The God`s book is made in the human language and one of its main characteristics is ambiguity....every word writen or spoken contains a lot of ambiguity...

121 A.L.R., these are the signs of the clarifying Scripture.
121 We have sent it down an Arabic Quran, perhaps you will comprehend

A.L.R., these are the signs of the Scripture, and a clear Quran.

Allah knows best

Marie

Zlatan

Salam br Zlatan,

I understand your reasonning, but I think the word "ta/weelihi" at the end of the verse refers to the book usually.
Ta/weel of the book will come in the light of 752-53.

Peace Mary

The meaning or interpretation of the word taweel in 3/7 and 7/52-53 is clearly different. The interpretation /translation/ meaning of taweel asoutcome or consequences seems more plausible and makes more sense in 7/52-53 and meaning "meaning/interpretation " makes more sense in 3/7...

As for taweelehu in 3/7 reffering either to the book or to "what is ambiguous of it", it makes no real difference to the meaning of the passage...

The God`s book is made in the human language and one of its main characteristics is ambiguity....every word writen or spoken contains a lot of ambiguity...

121 A.L.R., these are the signs of the clarifying Scripture.
121 We have sent it down an Arabic Quran, perhaps you will comprehend

A.L.R., these are the signs of the Scripture, and a clear Quran.

Recently when we have discused salat you have said that "I think it is not black or white. We have to consider the context of each verse"...

and now it seems to me that you have formed exactly such a black-white view on this topic....

what we need here, like in many other topics, is a kind of 3 dimensional view...two dimensional or black-white view simply isnt true...

Quran being clear is not in contradiction with having some undecisive or ambiguous elements cause considered as a whole( and remember it is the way it should be considered) it is clear...(besides imo mubeen can mean clarifying as well not solely clear)

I am sure you know enough of arabic gramar to know of its indefinite pronouns.... they are an essential part of arabic language ...they are in their nature ambiguous...and we can do nothing about it...does it mean that theres no single book in arabic that is clear? does it mean the God`s book is not clear or The God is a liar? Does it mean that in order to make the book decisive The God must avoid indefinite pronouns? Of course not...(imagine how clustered and cucumbersome such a book or discourse would look like)

See for example verse 4/159...there are so many indefinite elements in it that one studying it in isolation will have a hard time defining to who or what are reffering its indefinite elements; namely pronoun "hi"(meaning it/him or his) which is used twice and which can reffer to several almost equaly valid yet differring objects/meanings

Jesus. 2. The follower of the book 3. it/that which is previously stated or the book/revelation in general 4.The God

(remember pronoun "hi" is used twice so there is a possibility of cross combining its objects so theoreticaly we have even more meanings; plus there is indefinite verb yakoonu which could refer either to the God or Jesus)

Dont you agree this passage is ambiguous?

best wishes,

Zlatan

cathedral

Salaam,

Zlatan, your analysis is faulty at best. The Arabic word 'man" is not masculine, it is used for masculine,feminine, singular,dual plural. It is described as an indeclinable conjunction.. Everyone should look up the definition for themselves in Lane, Omar, Lisan al arab,etc. You translated

"so whoever(masc.)is killed with injustice then we have already gave to his(masc) protector authority to kill... '

The word you translate as "so" is wa, and would mean "and" here, your translation would work if the word was fa. In the English language, the word "so" in the sentence you gave is giving a cause and effect, fa does that in Arabic,not wa. Again, I hope everyone checks a good dictionary to verify what I'm saying is true. You also make a big deal out of the fact that nafsa is feminine. Nafsa is feminine in nature, but is used in Arabic to describe both men and women, as are many other nouns in ArRabic. Finally, look where the verse switches,, it refers back to the word 'man', which is used for both masculine and feminine.

Zlatan

Peace cathedral !

I almost completely agree with your analysis and that`s exactly what i was saying....

Your analysis actually proves validity of my claim that "ta`weelahu" in 3/7 CAN validly reffer to the ayatun mutashabihatun inspite of the difference in gender...

There are some of your points with which i disagree... but which are imo irrelevant to the topic... i think "wa" can render the same meaning as "fa" the same way as "and" in english can render "so"... i think there is plenty of examples for it in the book, one being this very verse you quoted........

As for "man/who/whoever" it is gramatically speaking masculine, at least in this verse(masculine verb used with it and it is reffered to in the verse as "hi" in waliyyhi/his protector)...of course "man" can reffer to feminine objects just like, in a way similar particle, "ma/what" (occurs in 3/7 in "ma tashabaha min hu/what is ambiguous of it") can reffer to feminine, as well as masculine objects...
although "man/who" can stand for both genders i think that when it is used in a general sense( like in this verse) it is of a masculine gender...there are plenty of such instances in the book and it is always reffred to with "masculine words"

content of this post EDITED

best wishes, Zlatan

unknownuser

Peace be upon you,

I will repeat some of my understandings so I can get caught back up with this debate.

Does he God deliver a message to us that we cannotunderstand? Are we just to be blind followers of a book just because it is claimed to be from the God?

If I sent ayone here a message in the mail and when you read it it said "kjgogpn ;jouyiyhd khugwutgw", would that be logical? Especially if there was something I really wanted you to know?

Since when do we start sentences with "AND"? Isn't that a word that connects , not starts off sentecnces?

(37) ...None knows its interpretation except the God AND those with knowledge. (they) say, "we have faith in it, all from at our Lord...

unknownuser

Peace be upon you all,

(1221) ... We highly positioned/secured to Joseph in the earth/Planet Earth, and to teach/instruct him from the stories interpretation ( min ta/weeli al-ahadeethi )

So is it the God and Joseph that know the correct interpretation, and the rest of mankind just guess at it? Or did the God intsruct Joseph in the WRONG interpretation,being that only the God knows the correct interpretation?

I would say that the God teaches ALL of those who aquire knowledge the CORRECT interpretation through thier daily life experiences.

Zlatan

Peace be upon you Kyle , all

Since when do we start sentences with "AND"? Isn't that a word that connects , not starts off sentecnces?

There is at least a hundred sentences which beggin with the particle ?waw? in the great reading...but their number is probably greater...its only my rough aproximation....how did you missed them is a mistery to me...maybe the reason is that translators often omit ?waw? from the begginings of the verses considering them redundant....

Kyle, excuse my eventual conjecturing but the correct reason is probably that you are writing and reading here too much posts and devoting much too energy in the search of the highly speculative and dubious ultra-hyper-extra-symbolical theories, to note such a simple fact....

Generaly many people on this forum are writing and reading much too posts speculating on most bizzare possibilites and wild guesses while devoting too little time to the night study of the book itself.......

Kyle you have become an ultra-lateral thinker....

True, the lateral thinking is good at excavating new facts and finding the solutions to the problems when the standard vertical thinking fails....but you have made the lateral thinking your default mode..the wild ride on the bike of your fantasies in my humble opinion leads you to the eternal fire...be aware of it...maybe its a time to study more seriously and thoroughly....

Best wishes, Zlatan

unknownuser

PEACE ZLATAN

I didn't see this post from you.

Arent we used to say that sentences of the gods book explain each other... Is that a contradiction too?

I don't know what you are saying here?

Is it smart to say that since sentences are clear thers no need for their explanation? And if there`s no ambiguity why we need other sentences to explain each other?

Just because something is clear doesn't mean that it cannot be further elaborated on. So, no, I don't see a problem with that.

The God`s book is made in the human language and one of its main characteristics is ambiguity....every word writen or spoken contains a lot of ambiguity...

Well, then you are in contradiction with Allah, because He defines His Quran as clear. For example, I'm certain that you read something when you were in the 5th grade and it wasn't clear to you, however, in the 8th grade it was. Now, did the writing on the page change or did your understanding change? What was on that page was clear in the 5th grade, but you simply didn't understand it then. It is the same with Al-Quran.

Mutashabatun, as you say, means
similar/alike

270 They said.

6141 And He it is Who produces

These ayats uses mutashabatun, to mean alike/similar, hence, how can it be any different with 37?

37 37 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.

37 Huwa allathee anzala AAalayka alkitaba minhu ayatun muhkamatun hunna ommu alkitabi waokharu mutashabihatun faamma allatheena fee quloobihim zayghun fayattabiAAoona ma tashabaha minhu ibtighaa alfitnati waibtighaa ta/weelihi wama yaAAlamu ta/weelahu illa Allahu waalrrasikhoona fee alAAilmi yaqooloona amanna bihi kullun min AAindi rabbina wama yaththakkaru illa oloo al-albabi

Allah has revealed (from time to time) the most beautiful Message in the form of a Book, consistent with itself, (yet) repeating (its teaching in various aspects) the skins of those who fear their Lord tremble thereat; then their skins and their hearts do soften to the celebration of Allah.s praises. Such is the guidance of Allah. He guides therewith whom He pleases, but such as Allah leaves to stray, can have none to guide.
Allahu nazzala ahsana alhadeethi kitaban mutashabihan mathaniya taqshaAAirru minhu juloodu allatheena yakhshawna rabbahum thumma taleenu julooduhum waquloobuhum ila thikri Allahi thalika huda Allahi yahdee bihi man yashao waman yudlili Allahu fama lahu min hadin.

If we take your position that, mutashabitun means allegorical/ambiguous, then ayat 37 and 3923 are in ciontradiction, because ayat 3923 says that the entire Quran is mutashabitun--allegorical/ambiguous, while 37 only says parts of it are. How do you explain this?

A word can have one or more then one valid meanings ...they may be releated and they may be totaly unrelated... this is an inherent feature of arabic and a few other languages i am familiar with.. and it wouldnt make me wonder if thats the case with all the languages....

If this is true, then wouldn't Al-Quran be ridden with discrepancies and contradictions...how is this possible?

Similarity, ambiguity and vaguenes are very related notions and the former produces and creates the (two) later...And the reason why i think the meaning of mutashabihat in 3/7 is ambiguous or undecisive is because of the context of the passage and the context of the book as a whole...

I think to refer to Allah's Quran as ambiguous when He says that it is clear, is a problematic proposition to me.

marie

Salam Damon, all,

Salaam Marie and all,

Marie Wrote

Peace Kyle, Damon, all,

I belive the quran is a clear message, consequently I don't think there is some verses in the quran we wil never understand them.
The quran explains itself (100%) and not partially.

Our Lord increase un in knowledge

Yes, you are essentially correct. The Quran DOES explain itself. I believe that this is just a part of the overall system GOD has in place in order for us to understand the Mutashabihaat Verses of The Book. Other parts of the overall system of increasing our knowledge would include, different life experiences, scientific and intellectual/educational advancement, the sharing of knowledge and wisdom with others, sincerity and humility of the individual, and of course whether or not we are meant to be properly guided by GOD.

I'd like to add this at my last post, I think our comprehension of similar verses is relative and progressive. Only Allah knows the 100% total truth.

The Clear Message as I see it are those verses which are considered Mukhamat, which are Self - Explanatory. I do believe that there are verses of The Quran that we may never understand based on three reasons.

I think we are speaking about the same thing but we express them differently.

We could understand all verses but at different degrees, we agree the humans do not hold the absolute science.

If I don't understand some verses today, I could understand them progressively in the future Inshaa Allah

I think we cannot say there are verses of the quran that we may never understand because Allah said that His message is clear, He doesn't speak only about the verses which are Self - Explanatory (Mukhamat).

If we understand some verses in different way, that doesn't imply we can never understand them and converge towards a common comprehension (relative and progressive) Inshaa Allah

I don't say that we will attain the 100% total truth.

Our goal is to seek and improve our knowledge until the death.

Marie

unknownuser

Peace be upon you Zlatan,

There is at least a hundred sentences which beggin with the particle ?waw? in the great reading...but their number is probably greater...its only my rough aproximation....how did you missed them is a mistery to me

Because the translators have placed "stops" where they felt approriate does not mean it is correct. Lets go through some of them so that I can be convinced this is the way the God intended it.

...maybe the reason is that translators often omit ?waw? from the begginings of the verses considering them redundant....

I am against ommision of any word.

Kyle, excuse my eventual conjecturing but the correct reason is probably that you are writing and reading here too much posts and devoting much too energy in the search of the highly speculative and dubious ultra-hyper-extra-symbolical theories, to note such a simple fact....

I am in search of the Truth, and yes, I exert MUCH energy in that process. I am sorry that you disagree with symbolisms. I refuse to believe that sticks turn into snakes for only a certian group of people while the rest are forced to just believe that it did.

Generaly many people on this forum are writing and reading much too posts speculating on most bizzare possibilites and wild guesses while devoting too little time to the night study of the book itself.......

I strongly agree, myself included.

Kyle you have become an ultra-lateral thinker....

I don't even know what that means

True, the lateral thinking is good at excavating new facts and finding the solutions to the problems when the standard vertical thinking fails....but you have made the lateral thinking your default mode..the wild ride on the bike of your fantasies in my humble opinion leads you to the eternal fire...be aware of it...maybe its a time to study more seriously and thoroughly....

Thank you for the advice. Is there some topic in particular where you feel I need more study? Please advise me.

ayman

Peace PB, all,

37 37 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.

37 Huwa allathee anzala AAalayka alkitaba minhu ayatun muhkamatun hunna ommu alkitabi waokharu mutashabihatun faamma allatheena fee quloobihim zayghun fayattabiAAoona ma tashabaha minhu ibtighaa alfitnati waibtighaa ta/weelihi wama yaAAlamu ta/weelahu illa Allahu waalrrasikhoona fee alAAilmi yaqooloona amanna bihi kullun min AAindi rabbina wama yaththakkaru illa oloo al-albabi

Allah has revealed (from time to time) the most beautiful Message in the form of a Book, consistent with itself, (yet) repeating (its teaching in various aspects) the skins of those who fear their Lord tremble thereat; then their skins and their hearts do soften to the celebration of Allah.s praises. Such is the guidance of Allah. He guides therewith whom He pleases, but such as Allah leaves to stray, can have none to guide.
Allahu nazzala ahsana alhadeethi kitaban mutashabihan mathaniya taqshaAAirru minhu juloodu allatheena yakhshawna rabbahum thumma taleenu julooduhum waquloobuhum ila thikri Allahi thalika huda Allahi yahdee bihi man yashao waman yudlili Allahu fama lahu min hadin.

If we take your position that, mutashabitun means allegorical/ambiguous, then ayat 37 and 3923 are in ciontradiction, because ayat 3923 says that the entire Quran is mutashabitun--allegorical/ambiguous, while 37 only says parts of it are. How do you explain this?

Thank you for bringing up this excellent observation. I think that allegorical and ambiguous are not synonyms.

In fact, if one looks at the highly allegorical signs in the great reading, they are very easy to understand and are not ambiguous at all. For example, when we hear in the great reading that those who reject the signs of The God are deaf, no one ever thinks that they are really physically deaf but everybody understands it as an allegory. Therefore those highly allegorical signs are actually very clear and far from being ambiguous and even the staunchest literal interpreters understand them allegorically and never physically.

I think that the problem arises when signs, for example, can be SIMILARLY interpreted as physical and/or allegorical. Hence, they are "mutashabihat"/SIMILAR. I don't think that it is right to say that the 100% true interpretation of such signs is allegorical or to say that the 100% true interpretation is physical. I think that the allegorical and literal understandings are not necessarily mutually exclusive and (for now) only The God knows the 100% true interpretation.

Based on this excellent observation of yours, I would like to correct my earlier translation of 37

He is the one who descended on you the book. From it are judging signs that are the cradle/origin of the book, and others that are similar. So in the case of
(1) Those who have blurriness in their hearts, they follow what is similar from it (the book) desiring a problem and desiring its (the book's) original interpretation. And none knows its (the book's) original interpretation except The God. And,
(2) Those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say "We have faith in it (the book), both (types of signs) are from our Lord."
And none remember other than those with intellects.

This leads to an interesting proposition. If the highly allegorical signs were in fact the easiest to understand and as we saw everybody agrees that they are allegorical, would that make them the "mo7kamat"/judging signs?

Thanks and all best wishes,

Ayman.

unknownuser

Peace be upon you Ayman,

I think that the problem arises when signs, for example, can be SIMILARLY interpreted as physical and/or allegorical. Hence, they are "mutashabihat"/SIMILAR.

I disagree, the vision given to Joseph is like the stories that are given to us, Josephs vision was not literal, because planetary objects did not prostrate to him, but a SIMILITUDE was shown to him. He understood this when the event happened because he had aquired knowledge. Similarly, when we read that a stick turned into a snake or a river was split in two, we should not be looking for the literal interpretation of that, but the SIMILITUDE in LIFE. D

I do not see the debate as being between physical and allegorical, but instead LITERAL and allegorical.

I don't think that it is right to say that the 100% true interpretation of such signs is allegorical or to say that the 100% true interpretation is physical. I think that the allegorical and literal understandings are not necessarily mutually exclusive and (for now) only The God knows the 100% true interpretation.

This is what I mean, we are stradling the fence here. Do you think that the splitting of the sea by tapping it with a stick is even .0001% LITERAL? I do not and I do not expect that the God would want me to believe something that goes against the rules He created.

ayman

Peace brother Kyle,

I disagree, the vision given to Joseph is like the stories that are given to us, Josephs vision was not literal, because planetary objects did not prostrate to him, but a SIMILITUDE was shown to him. He understood this when the event happened because he had aquired knowledge.

Actually, this vision is the ONE vision that Yusuf didn't know the 100% true interpretation of. Hence, he asked his father about it. Later on when it was realized, he remembered it and said "this is the true interpretation of my vision". This indicates that he DIDN'T KNOW FOR SURE the interpretation before that instance.

Moreover, Yusuf did give a literal interpretation of one of his jail mates dreams.

Similarly, when we read that a stick turned into a snake or a river was split in two, we should not be looking for the literal interpretation of that, but the SIMILITUDE in LIFE. D

Actually, a tsunami does make water recede before it comes back crashing down. As far as I remember, in one incident in Hawaii it was reported that the bottom of the ocean was visible for 20 or more minutes. Hence, a tsunami large enough would make it possible for people to cross safely a narrow water way and then very high water would come back crashing down on the people who cross after them.

I do not see the debate as being between physical and allegorical, but instead LITERAL and allegorical.

What is the difference?

This is what I mean, we are stradling the fence here. Do you think that the splitting of the sea by tapping it with a stick is even .0001% LITERAL? I do not and I do not expect that the God would want me to believe something that goes against the rules He created.

I think that the key here is the RULES HE CREATED. Is it The God or the stick that split the sea?

I think that you are right that water in the great reading has a symbolic meaning. However, one doesn't have to exclude any literal meaning to get a symbolic lesson out of a story.

At the end, "understanding" itself is "allegorical". We don't have literal sticks in our mind even though we can think about them.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman.

unknownuser

PEACE AYMAN

Thank you for bringing up this excellent observation...Based on this excellent observation of yours...

While I have an ego that, at times, is glacial in its dimensions, I cannot take credit for this observation, darn! x This is an observation of my instructors which came out during one of our study groups.

Now, if only I could convince you that, Iblis, was not one of the malaika, my ego would be restored! lol

I think that allegorical and ambiguous are not synonyms. In fact, if one looks at the highly allegorical signs in the great reading, they are very easy to understand and are not ambiguous at all...Therefore those highly allegorical signs are actually very clear and far from being ambiguous and even the staunchest literal interpreters understand them allegorically and never physically.

I agree in the main. Simply, because we cannot immediately understand an ayat, doesn't mean that it is at all ambiguous, and, to refer to it as such, is to be in contradiction with Allah, where He refers to His ayats as being clear. However, some of the allegories i.e. the Cave allegory, eludes me, still, it is quite clear to those who do understand it.

I think mutashabitun, includes both the metaphorical/allegorical and ayats which simply require other ayats to further explain/develop them i.e. 234 requiring 1850 and 1649-50, to further develop/explain it

Anyway...does this work/make sense?

37 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 similar/consistent in meaning (but) requiring the elaboration of others; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the parts which are similar/consistent in meaning (but) requiring the elaboration of others , 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.

Peace

unknownuser

Peace be upon you brother Ayman,

Actually, this vision is the ONE vision that Yusuf didn't know the 100% true interpretation of. Hence, he asked his father about it. Later on when it was realized, he remembered it and said "this is the true interpretation of my vision". This indicates that he DIDN'T KNOW FOR SURE the interpretation before that instance.

Yes, I agree. That is not different from my understanding. My position is that the Book of life(al kitaab) is continuously unfolding everyday in front of our eyes and ears. These stories that we are given are being played out everyday so that we might do the same and finally get the true interpretation. We do not get it by saying "only the God knows" and no one else, I believe we get it by serious study and observation. By applying these stories to our lives, not keeping them "literal" thus stuck back in time where we cannot verify it nor apply it to right now in our lives.

Moreover, Yusuf did give a literal interpretation of one of his jail mates dreams.

Yes, he did. I do not fully understand the interpretation of Josephs story. I will keep this observation in mind as we go along. My thoughts on this verse is that what your mind focuses on (your vision) is what comes to be.

idolfree1 wrote
Similarly, when we read that a stick turned into a snake or a river was split in two, we should not be looking for the literal interpretation of that, but the SIMILITUDE in LIFE.

Actually, a tsunami does make water recede before it comes back crashing down. As far as I remember, in one incident in Hawaii it was reported that the bottom of the ocean was visible for 20 or more minutes. Hence, a tsunami large enough would make it possible for people to cross safely a narrow water way and then very high water would come back crashing down on the people who cross after them.

So why did Musa touch the water with his stick? Was he trying to fool his followers into thinking he had some magical powers? What would the lesson be in TODAYS PRESENT LIFE for us if we are to believe that the God gave Musa special powers to cause Tsunamis to escape his oppressors , while so many are oppressed today?

idolfree1 wrote
I do not see the debate as being between physical and allegorical, but instead LITERAL and allegorical.

What is the difference?

Lets take ruku and sujood as an example. Both you and I agree that this is SYMBOLIC as far as we do not have to actually get on the ground and do the traditional movements. That is debating between the LITERAL (traditional style) and the Allegorical(What both you and I understand). But we cannot make the mistake and say that they are not PHYSICAL because PHYSICALLY reaching in your pocket and PHYSICALLY giving a poor person some money is a PHYSICAL act. Going out to a street corner and passing out flyers calling the people to the right path is a PHYSICAL act. Al of this is prostrating(sujood) and is physical, just not the TRADITIONAL "phyhsical" prostration.

Was I successful in clarifying that?

idolfree1 wrote
This is what I mean, we are stradling the fence here. Do you think that the splitting of the sea by tapping it with a stick is even .0001% LITERAL? I do not and I do not expect that the God would want me to believe something that goes against the rules He created.

I think that the key here is the RULES HE CREATED. Is it The God or the stick that split the sea?

I don't think the sea was split , literally. But for the purpose of discussion, it is the God who does all things. But then what is the reason for telling Musa to touch the water with the stick?

I think that you are right that water in the great reading has a symbolic meaning. However, one doesn't have to exclude any literal meaning to get a symbolic lesson out of a story.

I only exclude that which contradicts reason. I donot know of any human being who can touch water with a stick and make it split in two so that people can walk across. I have no other option but to reject that understanding until I see otherwise. The Symbolic understanding helps me to progress in life.

At the end, "understanding" itself is "allegorical". We don't have literal sticks in our mind even though we can think about them.

Yes, we can CREATE all of these stories in our MINDS(nafs), just as we are mental creations in the "Great Mind". It is very powerful to envision a man trapped by a river and the God telling him to tap the water with his stick and it opens up and they are saved. I do it all the time. But we should not take it to the level that we can make this happen literally. We have to apply the SIMILITUDE. We cannot make the same mistake that those who call themselves "christians" made with the SIMILITUDE that was shown to them regarding Isa, son of Mariam.

Zlatan

PEACE PRIEST

PEACE ZLATAN

I didn't see this post from you.

Judging by your coments in it you didnt see the rest of them either

Arent we used to say that sentences of the gods book explain each other... Is that a contradiction too?

I don't know what you are saying here?

I meant if they are already clear why they need other sentences to explain themthat would be contradiction in your black-white view of the bookwhy would he God have said thus we explain our messages/signs if they are already clear(of course if you agree with this translation b tw I am not sure its the correct trans.).

Is it smart to say that since sentences are clear thers no need for their explanation? And if there`s no ambiguity why we need other sentences to explain each other?

Just because something is clear doesn't mean that it cannot be further elaborated on. So, no, I don't see a problem with that.

how it happened that explaining has now become further elaboratingyou see that you are able of 3d thinkingthen why not applie same logic to ambiguous messages of the bookyou are very strict, rigid and inflexibile when it comes to translating word mutashabihat as ambiguous and on the other side you allow great freedom to yourself in translating byynand later on in a new post translating mutashabihat as "similar/consistent in meaning (but) requiring the explanation of others

The God`s book is made in the human language and one of its main characteristics is ambiguity....every word writen or spoken contains a lot of ambiguity...

Well, then you are in contradiction with Allah, because He defines His Quran as clear.

I didnt reffered to the whole book as ambiguous, though even that wouldnt be wrong.as I have already explained in the previous post there being some ambiguous elements in a writing doesnt make that writing ambiguous as a whole generally you need to take of 2- d glasses and put 3-d glasses on and even the 4-d glasseswe need a holistic and intelligent approach

Study carefuly the human languages and youl notice that ***e v e r y thing is relative**, everything is depending of c o n t e x t and sometimes even of tone of the voice.. its absolutely wrong to take any statement of any writing to the extreme and as absolute.and this is particularly case with the great readingrather than a simple compilation of isolated sentences, the Quran is a doctrine, a final product that we get after we sensibly and very carefuly mix and interreact all this sentences... its is a new whole and not simply any of its sentences in isolation the whole of it

In one of the previous posts I have even suggested other topic for checking of my claimsstudy the topic of intercession , of knowing the gayb and of the guiding, and if you wish any other topic and you will find many contradictions with the black and white reasoning

For example, I'm certain that you read something when you were in the 5th grade and it wasn't clear to you, however, in the 8th grade it was. Now, did the writing on the page change or did your understanding change? What was on that page was clear in the 5th grade, but you simply didn't understand it then. It is the same with Al-Quran.

You have given a nice example then what prevents you to accept ambiguous as a translation for mutashabihat..ambiguous might simply mean double or multiple meaning.

If we take your position that, mutashabitun means allegorical/ambiguous, then ayat 37 and 3923 are in ciontradiction, because ayat 3923 says that the entire Quran is mutashabitun--allegorical/ambiguous, while 37 only says parts of it are. How do you explain this?

I have reffered to mutashabihat as ambiguous, indecisive, indefinite, unrestrained and maybe some other similar term but n e v e r as allegorical it is very weird that you ascribe it to me

And the passages are not in contradiction if we take that in 3/7 mutashabihat means ambiguous. simply the word as any other word can have more than one meaning in 39/23 its meaning is probably consistent or similar and the meanings even can be totally opposite. the same message can be expressed in diferrent wording and vice versa, different and quite opposite ideas can be expressed with the the same words or wording.. this is a well proven fact in many languages if one denies it then he is in denial of reality and the truth to say that a word can have only one single meaning is utterly wronga word can have an indefinite number of meanings

And even if we translate it to mean ambiguous in 39/23 it wouldnt necessarily be a contradiction.everything is relative and everything is depending of context and of the a s p e c t or point of view of the speaker or the one who study the message or to whome message is addressed....

For example the god is the mercifull and the same god is strong in punishementand you can even find these two definitons in a single sentence in the great reading.it simply require 3-d thinking to reconcile between these two etremes.He is the first and the last. And He is the hidden and the apparentno contradiction.just put on 3-d glasses or reasoning

A word can have one or more then one valid meanings ...they may be releated and they may be totaly unrelated... this is an inherent feature of arabic and a few other languages i am familiar with.. and it wouldnt make me wonder if thats the case with all the languages....

If this is true, then wouldn't Al-Quran be ridden with discrepancies and contradictions...how is this possible?

You need to excercise logical thinking morehow existence of the words with several meanings make Quran ridden with discrepancies and contradictions ?

Similarity, ambiguity and vaguenes are very related notions and the former produces and creates the (two) later...And the reason why i think the meaning of mutashabihat in 3/7 is ambiguous or undecisive is because of the context of the passage and the context of the book as a whole...

I think to refer to Allah's Quran as ambiguous when He says that it is clear, is a problematic proposition to me.

I didnt reffered to the whole Quran as ambiguous but I spoke of it having ambiguous elements.and theres no book in arabic without these ambiguous, indecisive or indefinite elementsyet there are many clear books in arabic.

If I say the Lakers have the fastest team in NBA, does it mean that each and every of their players is faster then any player from the other teams.. of course not however if you put 2-d glasses and exercise black and white thinking you could argue that thats exactly the case

as I have said you need to exercise logical thinking3-d thinking, 4-d thinking, thinking in colour, you need to note the r e l a t i v i t y of everything , particularly of everything saidin the Gods book and in any other speechand to leave quranaloners dogmas and preconceived notions about Arabic langage

I have read your newest post and it seems that we agree what is mutashabihat though its hard for you to spell it -ambiguous.maybe you more like undecisive or undefined or indefinite or unrestrained as the translation? Ambiguous is just a word helping us to put it most simply.it means double or vague or multiple meaning and your translations is a bit cucumbersome similar/consistent in meaning (but) requiring the explanation of others and is more an interpretation than translation

try to put this cucumbersome translation in 39/23 and see if it fit

If a sunnie have made a similar acrobatic you would probably hang him up

To translate mutashabihat as similar simply does not make sense..almost nothing in the verse 3/7 makes sense in that case

No disrespect just a discussion.

best wishes, Zlatan

unknownuser

PEACE ZLATAN

Judging by your coments in it you didnt see the rest of them either

No need to be defensive, simply because you have this issue wrong, learn from it.

how it happened that explaining has now become further elaboratingyou see that you are able of 3d thinkingthen why not applie same logic to ambiguous messages of the bookyou are very strict, rigid and inflexibile when it comes to translating word mutashabihat as ambiguous and on the other side you allow great freedom to yourself in translating byynand later on in a new post translating mutashabihat as "similar/consistent in meaning (but) requiring the explanation of others

For example, let's use you. It is abundantly clear that you are a defensive fellow and that is sufficient to describe your behavior here at FREE-MINDS. Now, I could further elaborate by saying that, your defensiveness, is a result of your pride, pride being, the dissatisfaction with the truth, the truth being, you have this issue wrong and you don't want to accept it. Do you see, now, the relationship between clear and elaboration? wink

PREIST For example, I'm certain that you read something when you were in the 5th grade and it wasn't clear to you, however, in the 8th grade it was. Now, did the writing on the page change or did your understanding change? What was on that page was clear in the 5th grade, but you simply didn't understand it then. It is the same with Al-Quran.

ZLATAN You have given a nice example then what prevents you to accept ambiguous as a translation for mutashabihat..ambiguous might simply mean double or multiple meaning.

Yes, it is an excellent example and it completely nullifies your entire arguement. Your desire to hold on to the superstitious notion that, Al-Quran, is ambiguous in part, prevents you from accepting the obvious that...Allah, says His Book is...clear. Now, either Allah is right and you are wrong or you are right and Allah is wrong, however, you both cannot be right. So, which is it?

Quote If we take your position that, mutashabitun means allegorical/ambiguous, then ayat 37 and 3923 are in ciontradiction, because ayat 3923 says that the entire Quran is mutashabitun--allegorical/ambiguous, while 37 only says parts of it are. How do you explain this?

I have reffered to mutashabihat as ambiguous, indecisive, indefinite, unrestrained and maybe some other similar term but n e v e r as allegorical it is very weird that you ascribe it to me

LOL! Well, pardon the heck out of me, will ya? O.k., so, you want to define mutashabihat as ambiguous, indecisive, indefinite, unrestrained, fine, however, these terms are more anti-Quranic than allegorical! Even allegorical, as Ayman, correctly points out, doesn't inherently mean the ayat still isn't clear! What are you thinking about...so much for your logic, eh?

And the passages are not in contradiction if we take that in 3/7 mutashabihat means ambiguous. simply the word as any other word can have more than one meaning in 39/23 its meaning is probably consistent or similar and the meanings even can be totally opposite.

In your above quote, you want to define Allah's ayats as "indecisive", yet, in your following quote, you are anything but decisive! i.e. "probably" and "can be", hardly decisive terminology. All you are doing is guessing/conjecturing/extrapolating. Come on, pull yourself together here.

And even if we translate it to mean ambiguous in 39/23 it wouldnt necessarily be a contradiction.everything is relative and everything is depending of context and of the a s p e c t of the speaker or the one who study the message or to whome message is addressed....

"Wouldn't necessarily"...hmmm...more guesswork. Anyway, Allah, doesn't define His ayats as relative, but decisive, similar, and consistent in meaning. If your position was correct, that, words can have contrary or opposite maening, then, Al-Quran would be a study in Philosophical Relativism and Contradiction...can't you, in your profound logic, understand that obvious consequence of your musings?

For example the god is the most mercifull and the same god is strong in punishementand you can even find these two definitons in a single sentence in the great reading.it simply require 3-d thinking to reconcile between these two etremes.He is the first and the last. And He is the hidden and the apparentno contradiction.just put on 3-d glasses or reasoning

I have no idea what you are trying to express here. Allah, clearly, says that He is The Merciful and that He is strict in punishment, so, what is your issue here? What same words have different meanings here?

A word can have one or more then one valid meanings ...they may be releated and they may be totaly unrelated... this is an inherent feature of arabic and a few other languages i am familiar with.. and it wouldnt make me wonder if thats the case with all the languages....

While this certainly is true with languages, it is totally untrue about Allah's Ayats. You are mixing things up, calm dowm.

You need to excercise logical thinking morehow existence of the words with several meanings make Quran ridden with discrepancies and contradictions ?

Huh??

I think to refer to Allah's Quran as ambiguous when He says that it is clear, is a problematic proposition to me.

I didnt reffered to the whole Quran as ambiguous but I spoke of it having ambiguous elements.and theres no book in arabic without these ambiguous, indecisive or indefinite elementsyet there are many clear books in arabic.

Oh, now it's "ambiguous elements", I see, cool. Could any of those elements be...ayats? If so, then, you are saying the same thing now that you've been saying all along. Was that logical?

If I say the Lakers have the fastest team in NBA, does it mean that each and every of their players is faster then any player from the other teams.. of course not however if you put 2-d glasses and exercise black and white thinking you could argue that thats exactly the case

Huh? If you state that the Lakers are the fastest team in the NBA, and that is true, well, what is unclear/ambiguous about your statement?? My goodness, what are you talking about??

as I have said you need to exercise logical thinking3-d thinking, 4-d thinking, thinking in colour, you need to note the r e l a t i v i t y of everything , particularly of everything saidin the Gods book and in any other speechand to leave quranaloners dogmas and preconceived notions about Arabic langage

Enough with your logic harangue already, because you've established quite clearly that, it is your "logic" which is severely challenged.

I have read your newest post and it seems that we agree what is mutashabihat though its hard for you to spell it -ambiguous.maybe you more like undecisive or undefined or indefinite or unrestrained as the translation? Ambiguous is just a word helping us to put it most simply.it means double or vague or multiple meaning and your translations is a bit

No, we do not agree on what mutashabihat means. My understanding is that, it means consistent/similar/alike, and not ambiguous, indecisive, undefined or any other un-Quranic adjective you can come up with.

Btw, you shouldn't comment on my misspelling of a transliterated term, especially, given that, you cannot spell such a common term as...referred correctly.

To translate mutashabihat as similar simply does not make sense..almost nothing in the verse 3/7 makes sense in that case

Then, it is time for someone to properly translate the ayat.

No disrepect just a discussion.

None taken, because you certainly, after what you've presented here, leave alot to be desired.