If incest is prohibited, how did the human race populate from Adam?
-
This becomes a problematic question if you believe that Adam was a single individual man.
This is not necessarily true. Adam is a collective noun indicating MANKIND. God created Adam (mankind) and made him his "khalifa" (vicegerent) on Earth. God also made the "malai'ka" (forces of nature) prostrate themselves to Adam (mankind). This prostration is symbolic. It means that God made these natural forces serve mankind.
Furthermore, there is no Eve mentioned anywhere in the Quran. The Quran mentions Adam and his mate (zawjuhu), not Adam and his wife (imra'atuhu). Hence the phrase Adam and his mate must be understood symbolically or collectively.
Those who are used to talking about Adam and Eve as two simgle idividuals are under the influence of the corrupted Jewish scriptures.
The Quran does not contradict science. Belief that the 6 billion+ humans on teh Earth today came from a single couple is scientifically impossible.
Furthermore, the Quran states clearly that Noah was the first prophet.
Peace...
-
Peace, so you think human race was in heaven and ate from the tree?
A garden =/= heaven.
-
This becomes a problematic question if you believe that Adam was a single individual man.
This is not necessarily true. Adam is a collective noun indicating MANKIND. God created Adam (mankind) and made him his "khalifa" (vicegerent) on Earth. God also made the "malai'ka" (forces of nature) prostrate themselves to Adam (mankind). This prostration is symbolic. It means that God made these natural forces serve mankind.
Furthermore, there is no Eve mentioned anywhere in the Quran. The Quran mentions Adam and his mate (zawjuhu), not Adam and his wife (imra'atuhu). Hence the phrase Adam and his mate must be understood symbolically or collectively.
Those who are used to talking about Adam and Eve as two simgle idividuals are under the influence of the corrupted Jewish scriptures.
The Quran does not contradict science. Belief that the 6 billion+ humans on teh Earth today came from a single couple is scientifically impossible.
Furthermore, the Quran states clearly that Noah was the first prophet.
Peace...
Peace Pazuzu,
What do you feel about 41?
41 - "O people, be aware of your Lord who has created you from one soul and He created from it its mate and sent forth from it many men and women; and be aware of God whom you ask about, and the relatives. God is watcher over you."
-
Peace Pazuzu,
What do you feel about 41?
41 - "O people, be aware of your Lord who has created you from one soul and He created from it its mate and sent forth from it many men and women; and be aware of God whom you ask about, and the relatives. God is watcher over you."
You see, there's this wacky theory called evolution and...
-
Peace Pazuzu,
What do you feel about 41?
41 - "O people, be aware of your Lord who has created you from one soul and He created from it its mate and sent forth from it many men and women; and be aware of God whom you ask about, and the relatives. God is watcher over you."
Well, I think it helps if we look at the context of the verses which come immediately after it ( 42 - 440 ). They contain social laws (dealing with orphans, marriage, money and equality between gender. Therefore, it's possible that the meaning of the phrase "created you from one soul and He created from it its mate" is telling us that the essence of the human soul is the same, wether it's a man or a woman. (All souls should be treated as equal, no racism, and no sexism). The context here is a social one, and has nothing to do with Genesis theory.
I don't know about you, but I think there's a big difference between this statement made in 41 - the equality of souls - and the claim that god shaped a man figure out of clay, then breathed life into it, and lo and behold! Adam was born. Then, from one of Adam's crooked ribbs, he made for him a companion. (Note that the ribb has to be crooked. Perhaps the inventor of this fairytale had a problem with women maybe?)
Peace, so you think human race was in heaven and ate from the tree?
If you are refering to the "Heaven of the Afterlife", then I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you. Adam (mankind) was created from this EARTH.
The word "Jannah", as OPF has shown, can mean "garden" or "forest". But it doesn't necessarily have to be intrepreted literally.
Remember God tells us that the Quran contains "MUTASHABIH" (allegorical) verses. Allegorical verses are metaphoric in nature. Hence "Jannah" can be a metaphor describing a state of contentment , or bliss. The first humans were originally living in this state. They had everything they needed, and were content. But then they ate from the "Tree". Again, the tree could very well be a symbol of greed. Remember that Satan was tempting mankind with something he never had immortality (How can this be the heaven of the afterlife then?). When Adam (mankind) ate from that tree, he was cast out of this state of bliss. Greed eventually leads to division, and division to conflict. Isn't this where we are today?Doesn't it make more sense to approach the story of Adam as a metaphor?
Peace..
-
Peace. God's system never changes. Incest is prohibited. Brothers can't marry sisters. How then did we multiply?
Peace Tarikh,
As mankind has evolved so have the divine laws with it. Every prophet brought a set of laws adapted to the then current evolution of mankind. Also necessity takes precedence over law. For instance pork is allowed when there's nothing else to eat and Incest would have been permissible for as long as it was required for the procreation of man.
yes -
Peace Tarikh,
As mankind has evolved so have the divine laws with it. Every prophet brought a set of laws adapted to the then current evolution of mankind. Also necessity takes precedence over law. For instance pork is allowed when there's nothing else to eat and Incest would have been permissible for as long as it was required for the procreation of man.
yesAppropriate answer.
siki
-
Well, I think it helps if we look at the context of the verses which come immediately after it ( 42 - 440 ). They contain social laws (dealing with orphans, marriage, money and equality between gender. Therefore, it's possible that the meaning of the phrase "created you from one soul and He created from it its mate" is telling us that the essence of the human soul is the same, wether it's a man or a woman. (All souls should be treated as equal, no racism, and no sexism). The context here is a social one, and has nothing to do with Genesis theory.
I don't know about you, but I think there's a big difference between this statement made in 41 - the equality of souls - and the claim that god shaped a man figure out of clay, then breathed life into it, and lo and behold! Adam was born. Then, from one of Adam's crooked ribbs, he made for him a companion. (Note that the ribb has to be crooked. Perhaps the inventor of this fairytale had a problem with women maybe?)
If you are refering to the "Heaven of the Afterlife", then I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you. Adam (mankind) was created from this EARTH.
The word "Jannah", as OPF has shown, can mean "garden" or "forest". But it doesn't necessarily have to be intrepreted literally.
Remember God tells us that the Quran contains "MUTASHABIH" (allegorical) verses. Allegorical verses are metaphoric in nature. Hence "Jannah" can be a metaphor describing a state of contentment , or bliss. The first humans were originally living in this state. They had everything they needed, and were content. But then they ate from the "Tree". Again, the tree could very well be a symbol of greed. Remember that Satan was tempting mankind with something he never had immortality (How can this be the heaven of the afterlife then?). When Adam (mankind) ate from that tree, he was cast out of this state of bliss. Greed eventually leads to division, and division to conflict. Isn't this where we are today?Doesn't it make more sense to approach the story of Adam as a metaphor?
Peace..
Peace Pazuzu,
I am sorry if I sound too blunt about this, but for me, you are uncomfortably switching between allegorical and factual. Words in allegorical verses which do not make sense to you are allegories (Jannah, Tree) and other words as immortality are fact. I have always thought that verses are allegorical as a whole, not just particular words within them. So, if we feel that a verse is allegorical, we shouldn't try to interpret it, philosophically, metaphorically or otherwise, because those are the verses which cause the divide, conflict and disagreement, because of human need to interpret and know everything. 37 is a very important verse in that regard. We know that people disagreed only after the Sign came to them. So why don't we agree on not interpreting the allegorical verses?
Anyway, that is just my current opinion on the matter. A lot of the new concepts that I am reading about are a lot to digest and it is going to take some time for me to completely submit to the Truth, but I am getting there.
Thanks for imparting your understanding, though. It definitely is food for thought.
Salam
-
If you are refering to the "Heaven of the Afterlife", then I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you. Adam (mankind) was created from this EARTH.
The word "Jannah", as OPF has shown, can mean "garden" or "forest". But it doesn't necessarily have to be intrepreted literally.
Remember God tells us that the Quran contains "MUTASHABIH" (allegorical) verses. Allegorical verses are metaphoric in nature. Hence "Jannah" can be a metaphor describing a state of contentment , or bliss. The first humans were originally living in this state. They had everything they needed, and were content. But then they ate from the "Tree". Again, the tree could very well be a symbol of greed. Remember that Satan was tempting mankind with something he never had immortality (How can this be the heaven of the afterlife then?). When Adam (mankind) ate from that tree, he was cast out of this state of bliss. Greed eventually leads to division, and division to conflict. Isn't this where we are today?Doesn't it make more sense to approach the story of Adam as a metaphor?
Peace..
It occurs to me, not that I say it was so, just an occurrence, that may be in here is a hint of evolution. Animals are not conscious of any need of intimacy for their sex life. Anywhere, in front of anything is good for them. Is one of the characteristics of humaness this need for intimacy for sexual relations, and from there the feeling of nakedness? Also the face to face may be part of that, whereas animal do not see face to face in that action.
More -and much wilder- speculation
Most monkeys or apes live in trees -this is the wild part- and eat from them. There could have been a certain species of tree with teratogenic properties, to which prehumans may have developed an addiction and which consumed overtime may have created changes resulting in the human body we know.This would have been the descent from the animal bliss, without moral qualms, without moral decisions, with every problem solved, because there simply isn't the concept of problem, because there is nothing to decide. That bliss is out, but bless(ing) is in and humankind is created, with its capacity to change the environment at will and to do good or harm at will, like being addicted and having good or bad dreams. If this change was done over time, the species might have been conscious in fact that it was changing, that it was getting further and further from all the other animals, and therefore conscious that this tree was leading them away from innocence into problems, but that they liked it.
Salaam
-
It occurs to me, not that I say it was so, just an occurrence, that may be in here is a hint of evolution. Animals are not conscious of any need of intimacy for their sex life. Anywhere, in front of anything is good for them. Is one of the characteristics of humaness this need for intimacy for sexual relations, and from there the feeling of nakedness? Also the face to face may be part of that, whereas animal do not see face to face in that action.
More -and much wilder- speculation
Most monkeys or apes live in trees -this is the wild part- and eat from them. There could have been a certain species of tree with teratogenic properties, to which prehumans may have developed an addiction and which consumed overtime may have created changes resulting in the human body we know.This would have been the descent from the animal bliss, without moral qualms, without moral decisions, with every problem solved, because there simply isn't the concept of problem, because there is nothing to decide. That bliss is out, but bless(ing) is in and humankind is created, with its capacity to change the environment at will and to do good or harm at will, like being addicted and having good or bad dreams. If this change was done over time, the species might have been conscious in fact that it was changing, that it was getting further and further from all the other animals, and therefore conscious that this tree was leading them away from innocence into problems, but that they liked it.
Salaam
This is exactly the danger of interpretation of allegorical verses. From just one hint, it branches out into numerous theories and speculations. The wonder is this is happening right in front of our eyes.
Sister huruf, please don't take this the wrong way. You are entitled to your imagination and opinion and I am sorry if I have offended you in any way.
Peace
-
Salaam,
The word Rabb means "One that developes from one stage to the other until it has reached its completion", sorry to say but this word screams evolution. Sadly, people uphold rather the Christian beliefs and force them on the QUran.
Please see this article on Quran and evolution
http//19.org/index.php?id=91,415,0,0,1,0&PHPSESSID=46095bd550baa0c4f6bab793e3d871a9
-
When Mankind began to divide as a tree into branches and each were busy with getting only the fruit of their own branch.
1019
All mankind were but one community (and are meant to be so); then they differed. Had it not been for a Word that went forth from your Lord (the Law of free will), He would have judged their disputes immediately.
Thus the moment of the fall is when Mankind started to live in larger societies, forming cities. This is also confirmed by archeology, class-differences emerged when cities were formed and the workers-class and the ruler-class was created.
This was the downfall of Adam, as people were focussed on personal gain and not collective gain as was done before when living in smaller groups.
-
Peace Arnold
Thats an interesting way of looking at it, thanks. Makes a lot of sense.
One question that I never got an answer (or dont think) is you believe that Jannat and Jahannam are on this world, correct? So when we die, is that it? Thats similar to the Jewish idea of how we live on in other peoples memories. I personally don't believe that, but just asking your view on that. When we die, what happens to us, literally.
Peace
-
Peace all,
Then at which point in evolutionary tree is Adam or when humanity starts?
http//www.drzach.net/images/evolution101.jpg
Or is Adam the initial germ thingy which all life (animal and plant) sprang from?
If so, what's the difference; single person pair or from single germ?The animal kingdom (i.e. nature) has incest occurring all the time; look at a pair of rabbits.
Difference with humans is that we are told ? don?t do it!
This is one of those rules like don?t eat pig meat; not about health reasons entirely for one is not guilty if unawares or if forced and even the best veal is forbidden as food if offered as sacrifice to another god.
The same would apply if someone married their sister unawares.
We are only guilty of things that we are conscious of ? don?t do it!
-
This is exactly the danger of interpretation of allegorical verses. From just one hint, it branches out into numerous theories and speculations. The wonder is this is happening right in front of our eyes.
Sister huruf, please don't take this the wrong way. You are entitled to your imagination and opinion and I am sorry if I have offended you in any way.
Peace
No ofence. I said myself that I was speculating. But on the other hand, the point is that I don't know that this aya is allegorical, or that it is factual. Till that is not settled , it is but natural that I should try to find out what it is, and see what fits and what not. May be it is not allegorical. Also many things factual can also be very good alegories. If it serves to communicate a meaning which is beyond its instant scope. In fact I would say that reality as we know it may well be an allegory of a higher order of reality. God speaks about dream in a way that we could say is an allegory of death.
Salaam