Every kind of similitude....
-
Peace,
I want to discuss the way the reading communicates its message to us and perhaps shed some light on one of the biggest controversies on this forum - the argument between physical and figurative - or literal and symbolic as people know it.
The first point that is made clear by the God is that...
226 The God does not shy away from citing any kind of similitude...
Inna Allaha la yastahyee an yadriba mathalan...
The God states explicitly that He presents any kind of similitude He wishes to guide us and teach us by. This is pointing out that figurative/metaphorical/allegorical language is found in the reading.
Let's examine some other verses that discuss similitudes.
3058 Thus, we have cited for the people in this Quran all kinds of similitudes. Yet, no matter what kind of proof you present to the disbelievers, they say, "You are falsifiers."
Walaqad darabna lilnnasi fee hatha alqur-ani min kulli mathalin wala-in ji/tahum bi-ayatin layaqoolanna allatheena kafaroo in antum illa mubtiloona
So the reading contains all kinds of similitudes, yet many will have you understand that unless something is specifically pointed out to be a similitude then it must be physical or literal. There is no evidence that this is the case at all. If the reading really is to contain all kinds of similitudes then it cannot just be the handful where it is made explicit that a similitude is being struck. It must be more than just that handful.
Again...
1854 We have cited in this Quran every kind of similitude, but the human being is the most argumentative creature.
Walaqad sarrafna fee hatha alqur-ani lilnnasi min kulli mathalin wakana al-insanu akthara shay-in jadalan
Every kind of similitude and yet most people believe that the text is all physical and has few similitudes or allegories. They fail to see that the most part of the text is allegory so that 1854 is true.
Those who take the stories to represent history and miraculous events are ignoring this plain fact that these are similitudes to be understood as allegories. Instead of this, those who wish these stories to be anything other than allegories are in their hearts believers in supernatural events and miracles. Their hearts demand miracles, when the God gives plenty of signs already.
1855 Nothing prevented the people from believing, when the guidance came to them, and from seeking the forgiveness of their Lord, except that they demanded to see the same (kind of miracles) as the previous generations, or challenged to see the retribution beforehand.
That we can hold a baby in our arms and marvel at it, is sign enough for believers; yet those who cannot accept that the God teaches us through similitudes demand belief in virginal births, and other physically impossible things.
Here is another example...
1789 We have cited for the people in this Quran all kinds of similitudes, but most people insist upon disbelieving.
Walaqad sarrafna lilnnasi fee hatha alqur-ani min kulli mathalin faaba aktharu alnnasi illa kufooran
Some might say that those who say that these stories are allegorical are disbelieving in them, in their physical reality - but the stories provide nothing unless they can be applied to our lives - and in that sense every story is a similitude for the things happening around us every day. The characters in the reading are all around us today. There are pharaohs and abu-lahabs everywhere. There are messengers and warners also.
So is it those who say these stories are allegories who are the disbelievers or those who demand that the stories are physical miracles?
Perhaps the answer is in the very next verse...
1790 They said, "We will not believe you unless you cause a spring to gush out of the ground.
The disbeliever is therefore not the one who understands and appreciates the God's similitudes; it is the people who demand that there are actual miracles... those who demand a spring to gush from the ground.
Regards.
-
salam .
so according to u the Quran only consists of simultudes ? there are no literal verses ?37 He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in this - all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.
It's all literal and all true; but it's not necessarily physical, but rather figurative.
People make the mistake of believing that allegory makes something falsehood. The God does not shy away from presenting allegories to us.
So rather than trying to determine what is literal and what is symbolic we must only consider what is straightforward and firm and all the remainder must be similar or allegorical verses based on 37.
This does not diminish the message. How does it affect anyone alive today to be told a story about a man named Noah living for 950 years?
If you believe it is a piece of history telling then you are turning the reading into an 'ancient tale' whereas the reading is a living message. The stories are allegorical because they are applicable to us today and they can only guide us if we see them as similitudes to our own situations.
That way, the reading becomes a book filled with all kinds of similitudes to guide us.
Regards.
-
salam.
salam .
so according to u the Quran only consists of simultudes ? there are no literal verses ?37 He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in this - all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.
this verse has nothing to do with simultudes(mathalin) . this is about muhkam and mutashabey verses . both muhkam and mutashabey can contain simultudes .
It's all literal and all true; but it's not necessarily physical, but rather figurative.
based on what criteria ? just because you dont understand how Noah could live 950 years , makes that verse symbolic ?
People make the mistake of believing that allegory makes something falsehood.
many people make the verses symbolic because they think that what the verse says is non-sense and cannot happen(like in Noah's case) . so they do consider it falsehood . this is their criteria for deciding which verses are symbolic .
So rather than trying to determine what is literal and what is symbolic we must only consider what is straightforward and firm and all the remainder must be similar or allegorical verses based on 37.
what 37 says is tells is that we must not pursue the mutashabey verses to cause confusion . it also says that whether the verse is muhkam or mutashabey , we must believe in it . so regarding the story of Noah , i believe in it . all of them come from God . it must be true . he certainly would have lived 950 years .
This does not diminish the message. How does it affect anyone alive today to be told a story about a man named Noah living for 950 years?
it is part of the message . why else did God willed to tell us that Noah lived 950 years ?
If you believe it is a piece of history telling then you are turning the reading into an 'ancient tale' whereas the reading is a living message.
Quran does narrate to us information of the unseen . the stories of the prophets are also information of the unseen . and according the Quran we must believe in the unseen .
-
Salaamun alaikum Truth,
Good topic to raise. I'd like to point out that ayaat of al-quraan are proven to be al-haqq/the ultimate truth due to ayaat fil afaaq/signs of horizon and ayaat fin nafs/signs in the self (41/53). Therefore both a literal and figurative dimension exists.
-
Peace
i pretty sure the ayahs in the Quran are symbolic. For example, the descriptions of the earth and fetuses (as leeches) are also symbolic descriptions. They have to be symbolic because people wouldn't understand them. Imagine how long the Quran would be if God decided to tell us how babies grow or how mountains form. And no one would understand it.
And about miracles, i don't believe in them. There is nothing that can break the laws of the universe. God created the universe. He created the laws that govern it. Why would he have to break His own laws to prove His existence? that's what people don't understand. That's why they look of miracles and supernatural events to prove the existence of God. And because miracles don't exist, all the "miracles" in the Quran are symbols. -
i pretty sure the ayahs in the Quran are symbolic. For example, the descriptions of the earth and fetuses (as leeches) are also symbolic descriptions. They have to be symbolic because people wouldn't understand them. Imagine how long the Quran would be if God decided to tell us how babies grow or how mountains form. And no one would understand it.
Could they be understood in other than a biological dimension? Why do people keep looking to the skies and use phrases like 'keep our feet on the ground' ?
And about miracles, i don't believe in them. There is nothing that can break the laws of the universe. God created the universe. He created the laws that govern it. Why would he have to break His own laws to prove His existence? that's what people don't understand. That's why they look of miracles and supernatural events to prove the existence of God. And because miracles don't exist, all the "miracles" in the Quran are symbols.
How do you know that 'the laws of the universe' doesn't include what you call 'miracles' ?
-
peace mquran
that's exactly why they're called "miracles"(as opposed to "normacles") and "supernatural." They go against nature which GOD created.
and i don't understand what you mean by biological dimensions. But i was just giving you an example from the Quran. There are more, but most of them you deny as being symbols and allegories.
-
And about miracles, i don't believe in them. There is nothing that can break the laws of the universe. God created the universe. He created the laws that govern it. Why would he have to break His own laws to prove His existence? that's what people don't understand.
salam.
they are not miracles,but signs . and they are not breaking the laws of God . which law do they break ? can u tell us ? -
that's exactly why they're called "miracles"(as opposed to "normacles") and "supernatural." They go against nature which GOD created.
Thanks for the 'normacles' thing. I actually laughed over breakfast. Saladin's voiced what would have been my response though.
and i don't understand what you mean by biological dimensions. But i was just giving you an example from the Quran. There are more, but most of them you deny as being symbols and allegories.
Ok, lets change it to 'physical dimensions' and include some 'scientific verses'. 27/88 tells us that mountains look to be still but they actually pass away as the clouds do. Many choose to take this verse as a 'miracle' because of the movement of tectonic plates. Lets not forget however the the ayaat of al-quraan resonates BOTH in the horizon and in the self. So what is 'mountain' in the self? Therein comes a metaphorical side.
-
Salaam!
I also think, like mquran, that 41/53 is decisive when we want to understand the nature of how the qur'?n verifies itself.
We all know the verses that constantly remind us to use our minds, to understand ourselves. The qur'?n calls those who do not believe in it and its Lord people who do not know/do not understand.
This means, in effect, that the qur'?n never asks for blind faith. It says that we can discover the proof for its accuracy.
From this we can easily deduce that to limit the relevance of the qur'?nic stories to some historical miracles would be quite inconsistent with the way the qur'?n verifies itself. In most cases we would not be able to prove or disporve these occurences.But that does not mean that miracles are not to be taken as having happened. On miracles and normacles I also agree with mquran and saladin.
I once had an interesting talk with a friend of mine who happens to be involved in the study of higher physics. I once asked him what higher physics would say if indeed the sea would part in front of you. Would they say that this is impossible?
His response was that they would not say that.
Higher physics formulates so called miracles in measurements of mathematical possibilities. They would say that while it is unlikely that the sea would part as such, it is not totally impossible.
If I let a ball fall out of my hand it is within the highest possibility that it will fall to the ground. But there is always a slight mathematical possibility that it would not.
Modern physics does not talk about fixed natural laws anymore. So called perceived natural laws are only seen as highest mathematical possibilities these days but not as neccessary occurances.
Everyone interested in this should read some little introductory works about quantum physics and the like. Using google will suffice already to find enough.
So, miracles do indeed belong to the way All?h created this universe. They are exceptions to the rule but not impossible.
Miracles are not against science. They are just against our usual assumptions.Bye,
Leyla
-
Leyla We all know the verses that constantly remind us to use our minds, to understand ourselves. The qur'?n calls those who do not believe in it and its Lord people who do not know/do not understand.
This means, in effect, that the qur'?n never asks for blind faith. It says that we can discover the proof for its accuracy.Agreed. One of the characteristics of the abdurrahmaan isThose who, when they are admonished with the Signs of their Lord, droop not down at them as if they were deaf or blind; (25/73)
From this we can easily deduce that to limit the relevance of the qur'?nic stories to some historical miracles would be quite inconsistent with the way the qur'?n verifies itself. In most cases we would not be able to prove or disporve these occurences.
Agreed. "Historical momentousness" is an affliction which prevernts people from seeing thier own momentousness. Their own nafs is the issue, not Muhammad or Jesus's nufus.
Miracles are not against science. They are just against our usual assumptions.
Rationalism is the disease of the quraniyoon, I opine. We need to able to say 'i dont have enough information to opine on that' instead of creating false epistemologies and projecting them upon al-quraan. Parwez, in an unusual manoeuver, used history to explain chapter 105, al-fiil. You can see the obvious deviation from his usual methodology. I would have loved to explore this subject with him but alas, I was too late (20 years too late).
-
mquran Rationalism is the disease of the quraniyoon, I opine. We need to able to say 'i dont have enough information to opine on that' instead of creating false epistemologies and projecting them upon al-quraan. Parwez, in an unusual manoeuver, used history to explain chapter 105, al-fiil. You can see the obvious deviation from his usual methodology.
Yep. Furthermore, there is a problem none of us will be able to escape completely
We all are easyly willing to take for granted what is taken for granted in our timeperiod and culture and with which we were raised.
Rationalism is unfortunately taken for granted today and people totally equate it with being modern.
Of course, this was not always the case in all timeperiods and it still is not in all cultures. Other cultures would have taken very different things for granted and would have projected them on the qur'?n.
Every culture and every timeperiod, of course, thinks that "they finally got it", that they are "the most evolved" and "the most progressive". Every culture and every timeperiod is horribly vain when it comes to this. But of course this vanity is not objective in any way.So, what?s the way out? Not submitting to cultural or temporary conditioning as much as possible by finding a criterion of knowledge that will not submit to the several but not objective things taken for granted in different timperiods and cultures.
A second problem that is difficult to escape is that the label "rational" is itself one which can be interpreted in several ways that inr eality have few to do with true ratio.
E.g. Most people talk about a "rational worldview" when talking about a worldview that came from modern science.
Many people these days are very proud to have a "rational worldview". However, how did they come to this rational worldview? Through using their own ratio ..... ????? Very rarely!!!!
I don?t know any person who claims to have a so called rational worldview and who personally went through all the experiments of Kepler, Galilei and Newton and through the reasonings of Einstein to verify their truth with their own ratio and within their own experiences.
Most people claiming to have a "rational worldview" just simply have a blind faith. A blind faith in what was taught at school, taught by parents, spread in the media. They assume that these things must be right .... but they didn?t go through the hard work to find out for themselves.
So, actually, most people who claim to have a rational worldview are just simply blind believers and not much more ... and that?s what`s called rational these days.What?s the way out here? To find a criterion of wisdom that will not ask for blind faith but for seeing its verification in our own experiences.
All?h Hafiz,
Leyla
-
peace
about the miracles. Yes i do believe in "normal miracles." These are miracles that can happen but are rare. Like someone surviving cancer. Or a team being down 3-0 at the end of the first half (im talking about futbol BTW) and then winning 3-4. Those are "miracles." What i disagree with is the idea of supernatural miracles. Where things go against logic.
So what is logic? logic is the understanding and reasoning we have based on the way the world acts. Its the world God created. Governed by his laws. So logic is actually God's laws. They can't be bent or broken. This NOT the matrix.
About the sea parting, as Leyla pointed out. It can possiblly happen. But what are the chances of a human parting it?
But the key word here is "possibly". Possibly, God doesnt exist. Possibly, the Quran is completely wrong. And the thing about science is that nothing is "absolute truth." Nothing we know, no fact, no theory, is absolutely true, according to science. So, there is a possibility that the theories of physics are wrong, and thus there is a possibility that anything can happen against them. Maybe. But if that was true, God would give us some kind of sign. Something that would tell us that the "supernatural" can occur. So far, i seen nona dat.
So here, i'm not following blind faith in anyone's teachings. Not even the Quran. I have looked at the world through my own eyes and understood it with my own mind. From what I've experienced, no miracles exist. -
Peace Phoenix!
So, there is a possibility that the theories of physics are wrong, and thus there is a possibility that anything can happen against them. Maybe. But if that was true, God would give us some kind of sign. Something that would tell us that the "supernatural" can occur. So far, i seen nona dat.
So here, i'm not following blind faith in anyone's teachings. Not even the Quran. I have looked at the world through my own eyes and understood it with my own mind. From what I've experienced, no miracles exist.Well, then your approach is surely not the worst one. At least it is much better than the approach of those people who will believe every kind of strange story that they are told from second hand.
Personally, when I look at my life I see that things occured to me that seemed so extremely unlikely and wonderous that I would call them occuring against all possibilities. They were no physical miracles, though. Just occurences and so called "coincidences". But when thinking about them they impress me as much as a mountain starting to fly right in front of me would.
Maybe sometimes its just a matter of perspective. Maybe if you would have experienced the same you would not perceive these occurences as as much miraculous as I do now.
Maybe it is just a matter of personal characters.
What I can simply say is that while I never needed a mountain starting to fly in front of me or a sea parting, I definitely needed those unlikely occurences right at the time they happened.
So I already have a sign that very very unlikely things are possible when one is really in need of them. And maybe sometimes a people really is in need of the sea parting in front of it .... .
I just haven?t seen it yet.
Hmm, but who knows. Maybe one far day I will be in need of a parting sea and then this experience may enter my horizon .... winkBy the way, some scientists of modern physics would say that the newest findings of physics are not just a sign but definit proof that anything could happen against the supposed natural laws. Unfortunately, I am not deep enough into that stuff to comment on that or to form a sure opinion. I am only a lay reader of that stuff.
I just want to mention it because it it as much an opinion voiced in the modern scientific world as anything else.But it is exactly this vastness of opinions in modern science that tells me that the truth of the qur'?n is more solid than the truth of any temporal phase of modern science.
So, until I have a definit qur'?nic evidence that the stories of the qur'?n are never to be taken literally (I already agreed that there is definitely a nonliteral archetypical meaning to them) and are only metaphorical I will rather put my trust into the qur'?n's report than into some supposed or true rationality.
This because the qur'?n has already proven itself as true in my own experiences and through my own mind and I would betray that verification if such a sure evidence didn?t enter my experiences yet as well.Maybe this evidence will enter my own experiences one day. Or maybe the sea will part in front of me ....
peace again,
Leyla
-
peace Leyla,
why do you need the sea to part in front of you? If you think that's supposed to strengthen your faith, then I would say you're wrong because the parting of the sea go against God's laws. God doesnt have to do some supernatural magical stuff to prove His existence to you. I really don't understand why people need, or want to sea supernatural occurances to strengthen their faith.
Those rare things that happen at just the right moment are, in my opinion, just coincidences. If you think about it, if the opposite would have happened, you would never know. You would accept your life the way it was and move on. And sometimes it does happen that even though the odds of something good happening to you are pretty good but something bad happens. People ignore those coincidences. These coincidences happen around us all the time, and that's what I call fate. So i don't really know what i'm trying to say anymore, but i think its that "miracles" are all around us. They are everywhere. Good or bad, they're there. And because everything in God's world is a "miracle." That means there are really no "miracle miracles."
And that's the point i'm trying to make. God's world itself is a miracle enough for us. We don't need something extra, or something that goes against reality itself for us to have faith in God.
And that's what the supporters of creationism fail to see. They want supernatural. They can't appreciate God's creation the way it is. -
Peace Phoenix1!
why do you need the sea to part in front of you?
I myself said I don?t need it.
And I can?t see myself needing it.
And it never happened to me.
But who am I to know about my future?Those rare things that happen at just the right moment are, in my opinion, just coincidences. If you think about it, if the opposite would have happened, you would never know. You would accept your life the way it was and move on. And sometimes it does happen that even though the odds of something good happening to you are pretty good but something bad happens. People ignore those coincidences.
No, sorry. I?m definitely talking about something else. I am talking about very decisive things.
I would give you an example if I could. However, then I would have to reveal too many things about my personal life and I am not prepared to do so here.
So, let?s settle the issue. All I can say here should be treated as hearsay by you anyhow until you make your own experiences. I just simply have received other impressions. So, again, I think your approach is definitely not bad!!And because everything in God's world is a "miracle."
And that's the point i'm trying to make. God's world itself is a miracle enough for us. We don't need something extra, or something that goes against reality itself for us to have faith in God.
And that's what the supporters of creationism fail to see. They want supernatural. They can't appreciate God's creation the way it is.I totally agree with you here!
You are very very right about this!However, to me that does not automatically lead to
That means there are really no "miracle miracles."
Bye,
Leyla
-
I mean that if your approach is based on
I have looked at the world through my own eyes and understood it with my own mind. From what I've experienced, no miracles exist.
I will have to respect it and I can respect it. As I said, it is much better than the approach of those who trust any kind of wonderous hersay. I won?t judge your experiences. They are yours.
However, I can not accept this approach as my own because it does not reflect its own truth within my own experiences in life and especially within my experiences with the truth of the qur'?n.
And I would agree with mquran when he says
We need to able to say 'i dont have enough information to opine on that' instead of creating false epistemologies and projecting them upon al-quraan.
That?s all I mean
-
And I would agree with mquran when he says
We need to able to say 'i dont have enough information to opine on that' instead of creating false epistemologies and projecting them upon al-quraan.
That?s all I mean
You mean when mquran nitpicks words out of general statements made and falsly projects them upon al-quran, huh? Very funny.