Do you take the Qur'an literally?
-
Speaking about polyandry and men being happy with it, of course they are. The use rostitutes all the time without the slightest dislike. What they do not want is responsibility or acknowledgement, but sharing women, oh yes, they are quite happy with it, those who do, of course. Obvioysly not all men are that type, Thank God.
Salaam
-
Speaking about polyandry and men being happy with it, of course they are. The use rostitutes all the time without the slightest dislike. What they do not want is responsibility or acknowledgement, but sharing women, oh yes, they are quite happy with it, those who do, of course. Obvioysly not all men are that type, Thank God.
Salaam
I already gave the reasons why the people in those areas in general would approve of polyandry. They struggle with their livelihood. And no, their societies are not run on patriarchy, hence they don't have the same level of thinking as you provided here. I suggest you watch on YouTube polyandrous families in South India and Tibet. One woman having two husbands even said that they were so content as a family that their happiness and contentment would be there simply by sitting together with their children in the same room, even if they were living without food for days at a time. Their husbands also supported their decision of having a polyandrous household. And this is just one example.
Peace.
-
I know of those marriages from very long ago, nd though they have very good press, in real life is not that rosy, but that is the way the solve their questions. Frequently they are brothers.
And now, in India, thanks to the selective abortion of female fetuses it seems that in some areas, since not all non aborted male fetuses can find a wife, because the potential ones were aborted, they resort to getting one of the brothers married and then, without the woman being aware, the other brothers join in. Cosy, yes, indeed.
As to the de facto poliandry that prostitution is I didnot mean to spoil the rosy picture of those lovely polyandrous marriages here or there, but to point out that it is not at polindry that some people cringe, but to any conditions that might entail an empowerment of women similar to the overempowerment of males that has raged for many centuries and up to the present. No, nothing against poliandry, only against males not holding the reins of it. If they hold the reins everything is fine. And it is plin that thye hold the reins in prostitution, so no way it is going to be done away with in any near future. Nothing unnatural in poliandry if it is in the form of prostitution for that kind of mentality.
Again, just in case anybody feels slighted, I am talking exclusively about "that kind of men". Thank God again, there are decent men and unsassuming and kind men around, may God bless them. I do nto know how many, but there are.
Salaam
-
Hello huruf,
I know of those marriages from very long ago, nd though they have very good press, in real life is not that rosy, but that is the way the solve their questions. Frequently they are brothers.
And now, in India, thanks to the selective abortion of female fetuses it seems that in some areas, since not all non aborted male fetuses can find a wife, because the potential ones were aborted, they resort to getting one of the brothers married and then, without the woman being aware, the other brothers join in. Cosy, yes, indeed.
Yeah, life is not that rosy obviously. But in some ways several of the women in the families are more empowered than several other communities' women. The men's main job is to earn the money, do the hard labour and protect their families. The women control the flow of finances and their consultation is important for almost all of the daily decision-making.
And yeah I did hear the stories of women being passed around due to lack of females in an Indian community. But then the women usually know what would happen to them. Otherwise if they don't, that is obviously abuse and criminal to the women, and another level of misogyny done where the men benefit through deceit.
As to the de facto poliandry that prostitution is I didnot mean to spoil the rosy picture of those lovely polyandrous marriages here or there, but to point out that it is not at polindry that some people cringe, but to any conditions that might entail an empowerment of women similar to the overempowerment of males that has raged for many centuries and up to the present. No, nothing against poliandry, only against males not holding the reins of it. If they hold the reins everything is fine. And it is plin that thye hold the reins in prostitution, so no way it is going to be done away with in any near future. Nothing unnatural in poliandry if it is in the form of prostitution for that kind of mentality.
I understand the fears, I have them too. Many males do have a tendency to try to turn many things in their direction. One of my fears is that if there are more women than men, for some men at least, they may try to turn that into a reason for having multiple women each. If there are more men than women, such type of men may try to turn that into a reason for passing around women between them.
I have been chatting with some women in polygamy situations in this blog, and the founder of the blog, Fiona, is a non-Muslim woman living polyandry with two husbands. Her first husband, who is a Muslim, cheated on her by taking another wife behind her back and telling her that a couple months AFTER contracting the marriage. She went through hell after knowing that, and some painful events followed. Later on during this half-single time she met another man, and got secretly married to him in almost exactly the same way. Her first husband also went through hell after that, despite doing the exact same thing to her in the first place. Now a couple years later, her first husband divorced his second wife, and they are all officially living in polyandry
https//polygamy911.wordpress.com/my-story/
Fiona is one of the rare honest women I had encountered in my life, both online and offline included. She has quite a great level of integrity and sincerity about her, and is very intelligent and well-read too. I don't agree with several things about her, and had some heavy disagreements too, but in a lot of ways agree with her as well. She shot up my self-worth in a number of ways, helped me deal with some of my fears, become more expressive, and caused me to question things regarding Islam and in a way come to Quranism from Sunni Islam earlier. And now questioning things within the Quran as well. In a way that makes sense at least. Do check out her blog. You may not agree with her in several areas, but you would still get nuggets of gold every once in a while. I commented there using the name 'Mariam'.
Peace.
-
Hi,
I've come to the conclusion that the Qur'an as a whole cannot be taken literally, this would simply be impossible and irrational.
Anyone who reads the Qur'an carefully will clearly see that there are plenty of verses that were only relevant to the conditions of the Arabs of Arabia at the time. There is actually no person on earth, no country on earth, and no organization on earth that follows the entire Qur'an literally. Even those who think they do. But if you tell any Muslim that there are verses that are NOT universal or verses that should NOT be taken LITERALLY they go berserk...
The Qur'an is not an encyclopedia, not "everything" can be find in the Qur'an. And it's not a book of law or economics or anything similar that we could easily apply in our life. The Qur'an was one of God's "interventions" in human history in a particular region in a particular time in history. Sure, there are beautiful universal messages as well, but to believe that the entire Qur'an can be taken literally and applied at any time in any region on earth is insanity. We can and should only be inspired by the Qur'an...
Your thoughts? What does the "Qur'an" mean to you?
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.I love this website, it is SO fascinating for me to see these people who have the Qur'an in their hands but say all kinds of things about it haha. Thank you for your post!
-
I am curious how you would see this verse for example, which appear misogynous. This is one of the examples regarding, frankly, my anger towards the traditional interpretations the Quran
314 Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire - of women and sons, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, fine branded horses, and cattle and tilled land. That is the enjoyment of worldly life, but Allah has with Him the best return.
The word 'Nas' is translated normally as 'mankind' or 'people'. And that in PEOPLE itself they have been given the desire of WOMEN. I thought women were supposed to be part of people? Hence we are being regarded as not even people in this case, but like cattle, or as property, for men who are the real people. That's objectification in yo' face gurl. You said earlier that it is the people's fault for misinterpreting the Quran and creating problems in the world. Looks like the Quran in several places actually approves of their actions as well to an extent. It even looks like many people's messed-up attitude is a direct result from reading the scriptures.
Some embarrassed translators translated 'Nas' as 'men', which is wrong.
Peace.
Peace Samira1234
Allow me to explain how I understand verse 314
The word
is a passive perfect verb (http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=3&verse=14)
It means "beautified/decorated/made attractive". As we know the actor in a passive verb is not declared so who has done it God or society/culture.Now start with verse 313 It is talking about two groups at war. One is in the way of God and other is Kuffar.
Verse 314 says that certain things have been made attractive/desirable for people. So the warring groups were desiring to have these things as a reward of fight. But what is with God is better than these.
Verse 315 says to the people fighting in the way of God that these are wordly things and there are better rewards for you in the later life.
So when I see these three verses together they make sense to me. Hope it helps.
-
The word
is a passive perfect verb (http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=3&verse=14)
It means "beautified/decorated/made attractive". As we know the actor in a passive verb is not declared so who has done it God or society/culture.A Passive verb has a Proxy subject/ergative, it is alwayas in nominative case; third word is its proxy subject. Please see the syntactic graph of 314 at quoted corpus.
The love of sensual excitements felt for some of the women has become alluring for people;
-
A Passive verb has a Proxy subject/ergative, it is alwayas in nominative case; third word is its proxy subject. Please see the syntactic graph of 314 at quoted corpus.
The love of sensual excitements felt for some of the women has become alluring for people;
Thanks Mazhar
My point was that who made it alluring for people. Is it God or society/culture because passive verb does not give the name of actor.
Peace
-
Thanks Mazhar
My point was that who made it alluring for people. Is it God or society/culture because passive verb does not give the name of actor.
Peace
Passive voice is used when doer is not identified. In Arabic passive verb the object of active voice verb becomes the Proxy subject.
-
Passive voice is used when doer is not identified. In Arabic passive verb the object of active voice verb becomes the Proxy subject.
So Mazhar when we say "kutila zaid" it means Zaid was killed. Zaid is the proxy subject but who killed him is not known.
Similarly "zuyyina linnas ...." mean beautified for people.... but who beautified them is not known. Generally it is understood that God has done it but text doesn't say who did it.
Peace
-
I appologize for picking a slightly older post to respond. I felt this post was not adequately discussed...
One of the biggest problems I still have is why an atheist who dedicates his whole life to help other people would be thrown in Hell for eternity. That simply doesn't make sense to me whatsoever. But I believe that God is just and that this will not be the case. I know if instead of being born to Turkish parents, I was born in Mexico , I wouldn't have been a Muslim today. There is no question. So just because you were born in Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Pakistan does not and cannot guarantee you a free ticket to Paradise.
In life, we will be that to which we are destined. My parents arrived to the US from Mexico just a couple of months before my birth, and I was meant to be nothing more than a person who submits to the will of God, a Muslim. That was and is God's destiny. Praise be to God.
Salam Martha.
I invite you to carefully reinvestigate the terms Iman (faith) and Janna (belief), Mu'min (faithful) and Kafir (repressor).
You have probably got the idea that Qur'an says Allah will burn the unbelievers in hell - which you are finding difficult to understand. I believe if you study diligently you will soon come to the conviction that this is a misconception based on faulty translations. Qur'an does not say this. Neither Arabic root meaning, nor Quranic theorlogy supports the word "kafir" to mean "unbeliever" - rather kafir is somone who represses or suppresses his "faith".
26 Indeed those who repress - it is same for them whether you warn them or don?t warn them, they won?t have faith.
27 Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing and on their vision a veil ? and for them - a great suffering.
(My personal translation, cross checking is recommended.)
But, then again, isn't "faith" (Iman) same as "believing" (Janna)? NOT EXACTLY. Faith is acknowledgement of our relationship with our Creator - that as our solemn "gratitude" towards the One who gave us the life we have an inviolable responsibility to live a responsible life based on the sense of right and wrong He instilled in us. Although I am using the word "He" and "One" it is possible to acknowledge and accept the same relationship without assigning a "Personification" to God. That is exactly what many in the Buddhist and Atheist camp do.
If you ask "an atheist who dedicates his whole life to help other people" why he or she helps others or strives to be a good person - the atheist would probably answer - I do not do this to please any deity, rather I do this for my own satisfaction - I do this because doing this (i.e. being good and helpful) makes me feel complete - it helps me look into the mirror with my head held high. (Helping others not to please any dety, but for the sake of goodness itself - is in other words helping others seeking the face of Allah - as suggested by Qur'an. Because Allah is the ultimate source of Goodness - Allah is NOT a deity.)
In other words what they really mean is that "goodness" is a natural instinct built into them. They surrender to this natural instinct. This surrender to ones God gifted instinct is already what is true "submission / islam"; this is already a mark of their "faith" or Iman. Of course, believing in a "personfied" God is more in line with the teaching of the messengers and holy scriptures (including Qur'an), as it is easier for most people to conceptualize God in that way - but mere "belief" in a "personfied" God is by no way a mandatory crieteria for being a Mu'min or faithful. It is theoretically possible for one to be atheist and Mu'min (faithful) and muslim at the same time. There are even Qur'anic examples of such people.
On the otherhand kafir who are condemned to eternal hell are people who (nomatter which religious camp they belong) are ungrateful towards the universal force which created and sustains them - and thereby represses their faith - forces their own soul to believe they have no obligation to act responsibly and morally. Kafir from the atheist camp believe they have no moral responsibility because there is no "God" and the kafir in the religious camp believe they have no moral responsibility as long as they can please their respective "deity" through worship and blind acceptance of customs and practices preached by the clergy of their religion. Thus "believing" (Janna) can act like a two way sword - when a faithful (mumin) believes in Allah, it is likely to elevate him to the status of a Muttaqui (Conscious), but when a kafir believes in Allah often he ends up believing in a deity (tagoot) by the name Allah and associate their clergy and scholars as partner to Allah to define rules and regulations superceding their God-gifted sense of right and wrong.
Just like a mu'min can belong to a religious or a secular club, a kafir can belong to a religious or a secular club. The differentiating crieteion between a mu'min and a kafir is their faith (acceptance of their obligation to live responsibly), not their belief.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
Iblis did not show respect to Adam for silly reasons in which he may have thought an injustice was being done to allow something he might have considered inferior to rule over the planet. This was an example of how people in their reasoning can end up disobeying Allah who knows what you do not know, and creates all the scenarios and situations. So I don't like when people say "Allah would never do an injustice" as if they would disbelieve or fight Allah if Allah did something they did not like or perceive as right or just. What more of a "test" or a "proving" can there be of who surrenders to Allah and who is made a rebel? I hope never to fall for such tricks, and instead I worship the Lord of Evil, Master of Good, who creates whatever and does whatever and is not bound to anything, not bound to justice, not bound to law, all these things are creations of Allah which all can do whatever Allah wants to do with them, and we can't help it or fight it, and that is surrender in my opinion. Even in hating Allah passionately and what Allah may do, we know that we can not fight Allah or win against Allah and try our best to get good from Allah rather than bad (and know that even that desire is from Allah, and the ability to achieve it or the failure to achieve it is all from Allah).
So I find that it is good if the beliefs of people are shaken, and that one sees who it is to fear, and not feel so safe or comfortable before the True Sovereign, but shudder and quake at the power of Almighty Allah, who can destroy you and torture you for no reason or make up any number of reasons and make you guilty and make your mouth even testify against you. One should not fear anything but Allah who creates all fear and frightening things and is the source of all harm and all pleasure.
-
I appologize for picking a slightly older post to respond. I felt this post was not adequately discussed...
Salam Martha.
I invite you to carefully reinvestigate the terms Iman (faith) and Janna (belief), Mu'min (faithful) and Kafir (repressor).
You have probably got the idea that Qur'an says Allah will burn the unbelievers in hell - which you are finding difficult to understand. I believe if you study diligently you will soon come to the conviction that this is a misconception based on faulty translations. Qur'an does not say this. Neither Arabic root meaning, nor Quranic theorlogy supports the word "kafir" to mean "unbeliever" - rather kafir is somone who represses or suppresses his "faith".
But isn't "faith" (Iman) same as "believing" (Janna)? Absolutely No. Faith is acknowledgement of our relationship with our Creator - that as our solemn "gratitude" towards the One who gave us the life we have an inviolable responsibility to live a responsible life based on the sense of right and wrong He instilled in us. Although I am using the word "He" and "One" it is possible to acknowledge and accept the same relationship without assigning a "Personification" to God. That is exactly what many in the Buddhist and Atheist camp do.
If you ask "an atheist who dedicates his whole life to help other people" why he or she helps others or strives to be a good person - the atheist would probably answer - I do not do this to please any deity, rather I do this for my own satisfaction - I do this because doing this (i.e. being good and helpful) makes me feel complete - it helps me look into the mirror with my head held high.
In other words what they really mean is that "goodness" is a natural instinct built into them. They surrender to this natural instinct. This surrender to ones God gifted instinct is already what is true "submission / islam"; this is already a mark of their "faith" or Iman. Of course, believing in a "personfied" God is more in line with the teaching of the messengers and holy scriptures (including Qur'an), as it is easier for most people to conceptualize God in that way - but in a "personfied" God is by no way a mandatory crieteria for being a Mu'min or faithful. It is theoretically possible for one to be atheist and Mu'min (faithful) and muslim at the same time. There are even Qur'anic examples of such people.
On the otherhand kafir who are condemned to eternal hell are people who (nomatter which religious camp they belong) are ungrateful towards the universal force which created and sustains them - and thereby represses their faith - forces their own soul to believe they have no obligation to act responsibly and morally. Kafir from the atheist camp believe they have no moral responsibility because there is no "God" and the kafir in the religious camp believe they have no moral responsibility as long as they can please their respective "deity" through worship and blind acceptance of customs and practices preached by the clergy of their religion.
Just like a mu'min can belong to a religious or a secular club, a kafir can belong to a religious or a secular club. The differentiating crieteion between a mu'min and a kafir is their faith (acceptance of their obligation to live responsibly), not their belief.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
ArmanSalaam Arman,
Really good post! I feel enlightened.. Have to admit, that line of thinking makes a lot more sense peace
Keep up the good work.Peace.
-
Hello Armanaziz,
Allah is NOT a deity
Can you elaborate on this please?
Peace.
-
Hello Armanaziz,
Allah is NOT a deity
Can you elaborate on this please?
Peace.
Salam Samira.
Allah is not a deity.
First of all, let me clarify what I try to mean by ?deity? in the above statement. A deity is an ?Object or Entity? which is worshiped by humans as a Supreme Authority. Some religions preach multiple deities, while others preach a single deity.
On the contrast Allah is not an ?Object or Entity?. Rather Allah is the source or Originator of all objects and entities. So, it is incorrect to understand Allah as a ?Deity in the heaven? ? rather Allah is the ?Reason? of existence of all entities and objects ? everything in the heavens and the earth.
The history tells us that pagan Arabs in jaheliat era worshiped a ?moon-god? names Allah in addition to several other deities. That ?deification? is called worship of ?tagoot? in Qur?an. If one moves away from being slave to the Master of the universe who is the source of human morality and judgement to the worship of an artificial deity which has to be defined and characterized by the scholars and clergy ? he is moving away from being submissive to Allah to being submissive to tagoot. And that is where the corruption engulfs religion.
You see ? throughout human history every community came us with some form of religions and rituals because human beings themselves require religion and rituals to ?formalize? the concepts of conscience and goodness ? to give the new generation a head-start in ethical thinking and to set the benchmarks of acceptable behavior within a societal setting. Whenever there is a real need ? a class of ?businessman? comes forward to take control of the supply for that need ? to make some money. That?s where the clergy comes in ? they take control of the religion and rituals either by using political power, or through provocation and transform the rituals and religion from being expression of one?s conscience and intellect ? to ?worship? of a deity that they can define as per their convenience. This ?deity? typically wants humans to do some good (because without this pretention of goodness they cannot brainwash the majority of people), but whenever the interest of the clergy and their political sponsors are at stake, the deity brings out its ugly face ? and starts preaching against free thoughts and morality. Since this is their deity ? they are the only ones who possess the information about the deity.
Per my understanding of Qur?an ? we have been commanded to move away from worship of such ?artificial? deities or tagoot. We have been told to be slave to the God of the entire universe whose rules and commands are naturally imprinted in human conscience in the form human morality and intellect. Believing and worshipping an artificially defined ?deity? is worship of tagoot.
2255 Allah ? no God except Him the Ever Living Sustainer of Existence. Drowsiness or sleep does not take him over. Whatever (is there) in the heavens and whatever (is there) on the earth (all) belong to Him. Who is the one who can intercede with Him except with His authorization? He knows whatever (happened) up until them (literally between their hands) and whatever (would happen) after them and they do not capture (literally surround) anything from His knowledge except what He wills. His domain encompasses the heavens and the earth and guarding of both does not fatigue Him and He is the Highest, the Greatest!
2256 There is no compulsion in the resolution (ِ. Verily, right has become clearly distinct from the error ? then whoever represses (faith) in deity (ِ and has faith in Allah has grasped the most firm handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Listener, Knowledgeable.
2257 Allah is the patron of those who have faith; He brings them out from darkness into light. And those who repress (faith) ? their patrons are the deities ( they bring them out from light into darkness; they are the ones ? the society of the fire; they will be in there permanently.
(My personal translation, cross checking is recommended.)
The above verses are immediately followed by an interesting story which further clarifies the difference between Allah and a deity (tagoot)
2258 Did you not see about the one who debated Abraham concerning his Master because Allah gave him the kingdom? As Abraham said, ?My Master is the one who enlivens and causes death.? He said, ?I (also) enliven and cause death.? Abraham said, ?Then indeed Allah brings up the sun from the east, so you bring it up from the west.? So the one who repressed (faith) became startled; and Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.
(My personal translation, cross checking is recommended.)
Now, let?s think carefully what is going on here. Is Abraham saying his Master is a ?Deity? who makes the sun rise in the east? Obviously not ? because in that case the king would challenge him to negotiate with the deity to change the direction of the sunrise for one day to prove his deity is the real deity. RATHER, Abraham is saying his Master is not any object or entity ? that he (Abraham) has taken as Master the Master of the universe who has created the Universe and set up the rules by which the universe operates. It is Allah?s rule that sun rises from the east depending on the direction of rotation of earth. Even if all the ?Muslims? or ?Hindus? or ?Christians? or ?Jews? combine and pray to their imaginary deities all together - nothing can change the rule of Allah. Because Allah is not deity of worship of a specific group or sect. Allah is the name of the ultimate source of everything that exist who defined how the universe would return good with good and evil with evil.
Hope this clarifies. May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
Hello Armanaziz,
Thank you for your response.
A deity is an ?Object or Entity? which is worshiped by humans as a Supreme Authority. Some religions preach multiple deities, while others preach a single deity.
On the contrast Allah is not an ?Object or Entity?. Rather Allah is the source or Originator of all objects and entities. So, it is incorrect to understand Allah as a ?Deity in the heaven? ? rather Allah is the ?Reason? of existence of all entities and objects ? everything in the heavens and the earth.
Allah is the name of the ultimate source of everything that exist who defined how the universe would return good with good and evil with evil.
You seem to be having a pantheistic vision of God. I got this from Wikipedia
"As a religious position, some describe pantheism as the polar opposite of atheism. From this standpoint, pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God. All forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it. Some hold that pantheism is a non-religious philosophical position. To them, pantheism is the view that the Universe and God are identical."
Hence all of the world and the Universe are at the end manifestations of God with God as the Source, and God's 'Holy Spirit' is present as well. The more one assimilates themselves with their inner consciousness, which is called the divine consciousness as well, the more the Holy Spirit can be a part of that person, and the person becomes more and more of an expression of God Itself in the outer world, and is more spiritual than fleshly/worldly.
But then the Quran in it's traditional translations doesn't seem to hold the same viewpoint. More like He created everything under His authority, and His vision and knowing by itself is Omnipresent only. Not His Self. Seeing such verses as examples
754 Your Lord is God who has created the heavens and the earth in six days, then He settled upon the Throne. The night runs away from the day, which seeks it continually; and the sun and the moon and the stars are commissioned by His command; to Him is the creation and the command. Glory to God, Lord of the worlds.
574 He is the One who has created the heavens and the earth in six days, then He settled upon the Throne. He knows everything that enters within the earth, and everything that comes out of it, and everything that comes down from the heaven, and everything that ascends into it. And He is with you wherever you may be. God is Seer of what you do.
2386 Say "Who is the Lord of the seven heavens and the Lord of the great Throne?"
23116 So, Exalted is God, the true King, there is no god except He, the Lord of the noble Throne.
407 Those who carry the Throne and all those surrounding it glorify the praise of their Lord, and believe in Him, and they seek forgiveness for those who have believed "Our Lord, You encompass all things with mercy and knowledge, so forgive those who repented and followed Your path, and spare them the agony of Hell."
6917 And the angels will be on its borders; and the Throne of your Lord will be carried, above them on that Day, by eight.
117 He is the One who has created the heavens and the earth in six days, and His Throne was upon the water; so as to test who from among you works the best. And when you say "You will be resurrected after the death," those who have rejected say "This is but clear magic!"
I am curious how you interpret the word 'Aarsh', which is supposed to mean 'throne'. Unless you have a different translation for it? Then how do you explain the verses having bold words in particular?
Peace,
Samira
-
You may want to also look up the term panentheism, that is pan-en-theism which means that God encompasses everything.
Also, though people may have at various times and places in the world, "adored the sun and the moon", Allah was not the word for the moon, but Allah was the term for the Ultimate, from the root 'lh, the ' being the glottal stop or "uh" sound. Allah was the semitic language word across the Semitic language family in various pronounciations but mostly "Uhllah", the "uh" or "ah" or "aw" at the end being considered a common attachment in pronouncing the term. The term had meanings like "Ultimate", "Beyond", "Powerful" and things like that and always referred to the Origination and Controller of all the forces of nature who were often called the "sons" due to calling anything "directly generated" to be a "son". Images may have been made later on but generally images were not made or believed to represent the original power which was understood to not have any form but to control all forms or "put its name into" or "put its glory into" certain representatives, which is an idea also found in the Bible, one such chosen representation was "Yw" which may be an early form of "YHWH" and was in conflict with "Hadad" who was often called "Baal" besides Allah who was also considered "Baal" in the sense of "Lord, Owner of the Household".
So throughout the Semitic language speaking people, the Akkadian language based people, there was the concept of the Ultimate and variations on the root 'lh were used to refer to this, it was not a reference to the moon but always a reference to the absolute Ultimate.
-
Samira,
In 117 it becomes obvious with rule/dominion/might for the word in question. Throne is just a lame interpretation.
Aersh also literally on a letter by letter basis means "Possess Foundation/Concrete Charge/Association", i.e. in an easier language rule or dominion or "have the position of power" but yet non physical obviously.
This is just ONE show of the weakness of the mainstream way of interpreting the discourse. It does not at all follow a letter by letter meaning pattern which is hinted at in Quran using the so-called initials.
Have faith
-
I do not think there is anytghing wrong with saying 3arsh provided we have the sane linguistic conscience. We say something is in our hands, even when our hads are empty, because we are sure to be understood by anybody, because people have a linguistic experience to know that what we mean is that we have some power or capacity over that something we are discussing.
If somebody in an atmosphere where there is a good linguistic conscience says throne to mean the peak of power, majesty rule and so many things, in the first place it is concise saving a few lines of words, it is more real, because all the things represented in the mentl image of throne are condensed into one, and all of the in fat are one, and people, get what is meant, unless something tells them that it is a piece of furniture we are talking about. Obviously, God and pieces of furniture are not likely to have in the same picture.
Salaam