Tasreef/Crossreference understanding of Jesus's deeds---Miracle belief rejected
-
Peace Sis, all
Dear sis thanks for sharing your thoughts. After refining my own views I also find myself in agreement with you. Also 1736 and 3918 ask us to follow the best. Literal translations make sense to some and metaphorical to others. More important thing is the way/system of life God has prescribed for us to follow. Quran is like the universe to me, different people find different things in it. 37 is also important that reminds us where our focus should be placed. The Book is understandable for a lay man and for a scientist at the same time. We do not know after few hundred years the interpretation of Quran would be completely different and things which seem metaphorical to us change to literal and literal to metaphorical.
Just some thoughts!
Thanks to all of you.
Hamsa -
Peace bro RH,
You're most welcome and I think what you posted makes sense .
-
Peace
I am in agreement with Tanveer with regard to the fact that there can not be two interpretations; real and metaphorical. Also if any interpretations of the verse creates logical fallacies that can not be correct.
Salaam Arnold
My opinion is that the miracles/signs performed by the Messengers were not exclusively to prove the existence of God or the power of God which a person with understanding can see from nature if guided. I think the miracles were mainly performed by Messengers to establish that they were true messengers of God and not charlatans or false Messengers. In the case of Moses as in 2626-34 the signs establish him with an audience with Pharaoh and certain respect. Without the signs Moses would have been treated with ridicule and possibly the threats of Pharaoh carried out.
-
Peace Hamsa
I thought you might be interested in the following verse. It may be relevant to the other verse we discussed earlier.
4 133
Yusuf Ali If it were His will He could destroy you O mankind and create another race for He hath power this to do.
Transliteration Iy yasya' yuzhibkum ayyuhan na_su wa ya'ti bi a_kharin(a), wa ka_nalla_hu 'ala_ za_lika qadira_(n).
Also I thought if Allah is subjected by the natural laws the following is an empty threat.
25 45
Yusuf Ali Hast thou not turned thy vision to thy Lord? how He doth prolong the Shadow! If He willed He could make it stationary! Then do We make the sun its guide -
Peace
I guess there is another way to look at the laws of nature.
Did Allah name natural phenomena as Laws of Nature? No, we named as such. Allah never called these ?Law?.
For Allah natural phenomena is a not natural phenomenon as for man. The natural phenomena are His creation and are His slave. Be it the sun, climate, light, gravity or anything in the earth and the space, it is His slave. We are subjected to natural phenomena since our control of such is minimal. Allah creates and controls nature and it is subjected to Him. Man submits to natural laws whereas nature submits to Allah. Therefore they are not laws for Him just His obedient slaves.
-
Peace Hamsa
I thought you might be interested in the following verse. It may be relevant to the other verse we discussed earlier.
4 133
Yusuf Ali If it were His will He could destroy you O mankind and create another race for He hath power this to do.
Transliteration Iy yasya' yuzhibkum ayyuhan na_su wa ya'ti bi a_kharin(a), wa ka_nalla_hu 'ala_ za_lika qadira_(n).
Also I thought if Allah is subjected by the natural laws the following is an empty threat.
25 45
Yusuf Ali Hast thou not turned thy vision to thy Lord? how He doth prolong the Shadow! If He willed He could make it stationary! Then do We make the sun its guidePeace bro,
4133 doesn't tell us that there are no laws to destroy mankind. God destroy people for their oppression and wrong doings.
2545 tells us God made laws as He willed. -
Therefore they are not laws for Him just His obedient slaves.
His laws are His obedient slaves
what's the difference. ;D
-
Where is the Quranic support ?
Is God subjected by His slaves ?
Therefore they are not laws for Him just His obedient slaves.
His laws are His obedient slavesI just mentioned using or removing the word Law doesn't make any difference.
I think we can agree to disagree on this issue. We are approaching it differently.
Hamsa
peace
-
Peace,
I already closed this argument with Warner, saying the same thing as SC. We almost use the same techniques for understanding the Quran. But our view on Nature, God and purpose are the ones that decide the interpretations. I choose what is for me the most logical as a scientist and theologist. No one is infallible and no interpretation is binding.
This ' contest' is only creating wedges in our movement which we should avoid when possible. We can not resolve this as it is our worldview that makes the difference, not the Quran.
-
Peace Tanveer,
How can one attain guidance from a metaphorical understanding of certain words/signs when the grammar, context, and logic of that written text makes a metaphorical interpretation of those words/signs impossible ?
It's not impossible. The whole point of a metaphor/symbolism is to extract a meaning other than the face values of the text itself. This can easily be done with any story given to us in the qur'an, whether the story actually occurred or did not. It is the guidance behind these stories that is the subject matter of the qur'an.
So, literal vs. symbolic, real vs. fiction, it is all irrelevant, and worse yet, a distraction if the guidance behind the accounts is lost in the argument.
God does not need to brag about the things He's done. The book is for us, for our spiritual development. If it helps you to see it literally, then fantastic. And if it helps me to see it symbolically, then fantastic. Neither view holds a monopoly on the understanding.
Peace,
Tay -
Salaam Arnold
I am in agreement with you on the techniques we use and sorry for posting after the close of arguments. Out of this discussion but on techniques why is it that you trust and follow lexicons and dictionaries and also grammar and language treatises written centuries after the Messenger and mostly by the Persians but do not consider etymology and Semitic use. The use of Arabic in the region after the Quraan was influenced by hadeeth, tafseers and various other sources. For instance a misunderstood word in the Quraan explained wrongly by a hadeeth entering the mainstream language with the wrong meaning and experts inventing roots and different derivatives and meanings for them and use of the misunderstood word becoming common use; all based on a mistake or misunderstanding. Just because the Bedouin (an excellent example of such a mistake) uses some word we will not know the source and the accuracy of the use or the period of origin; post or pre quranic.
Also, as you know Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic are Semitic languages which have lot in common. The previous two scriptures being revealed in the latter two and most possibly the languages of the many Messengers and others mentioned in the Quraan. Do you use these two languages and Semitic roots for understanding the Quran ? Please note I do not recommend blind use of etymology or Hebrew and Aramaic for that matter and the final qualification being the use of the word in the Quran.
But if my observation on your techniques is wrong please accept the second apology for the day.
-
Peace Warner,
I 100% agree, but it doesn't really fit with our discussion does it? Because if the dictionaries would be completely influenced by Hadith, then why can I bring a non-miracle interpretation in the picture with only using the Lexicons, cross-reference and without a pre-conceived interpretation? Hadith were created by people who believed in miracles.
So this is why must hold on to the guidelines of the Quran to get the best full picture. We only differ on one subject, and this is normal. Like you said before, it forces to express our understandings every time on a higher level and let it evolve or be improved or changed. The most important thing is that we do not condemn each other and accusse one side for 'twisting' as this has to do with approach of definitions, not with the Arabic itself.
In the end, the stories of the Prophets are only one little piece inside the puzzle of the Quranic System, I believe we mostly agree on the Quranic system, so we must not fight over such little pieces as this. I have learned to express my thoughts better and better through these discussions and also learned that it is more about world-view then on 'who is right'.
So I thank you for your posts and you do not need to say sorry as you only asked questions, which must always be possible.
We may not agree, but I do hope that I have explained my view in the best way.