Where did we come from?
-
To avoid derailing the other thread any further
Peace Br. OPF,
The verses quoted by you are as follows (All literal translations)
{trimmed}
Pardon me for being skeptical, but I am afraid to attribute anything to God which I am not sure of.
Peace
God's word/expression does not change, correct? So how does God originate creation?
2117 - Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He decrees an affair, He only says to it, Be, so there it is.
And also the commands
029.019 - Do they not consider how Allah originates the creation, then reproduces it? Surely that is easy to Allah.
029.020 Travel in the earth and see how He makes the first creation, then Allah creates the latter creation; surely Allah has power over all things.
Who travels in the Earth and observes the first creation? Certainly not creationists. Paleontologists. And their findings are much different. The people who obey a quranic commandment say different things to people who claim to do so - and one side has evidence.
It can be seen that God had created all mankind on His nature and there can be no change is that creation nor in manner thereof. Further, if it meant to be all-inclusive, it could have said, "all(Kul) creation" or "creations".
Forgive me because I'm not great at Arabic but the general rule is that definite, indefinite, plural, singular, it doesn't matter - creation refers to creation unless the context makes it specific. Given that God is all-powerful, does that mean that only humans are special? In any case the point is proven, that "God's word" is everything.
Now, I AM interested... Who runs that site, anyway? And why did you take that information on its face value and not verify its claims?
I am a little uncomfortable with that. For Abraham, you said that he died a long time ago. Since we did not see or verify the Book's verses, so the burden to prove anything "supernatural" is on us. For what will happen after our deaths, you claim to say that the Book says it will happen and that is all you need to know, without touching on the fact that there are more than a few verses which detail the events surrounding that phenomenon and how you established that it won't violate the laws of God (if it was based on the verses discussed above, then, pardon me if I am less than convinced).
Quite the opposite. I had exactly what I wanted in mind, previously verified, and got it
without touching on the fact that there are more than a few verses which detail the events surrounding that phenomenon and how you established that it won't violate the laws of God (if it was based on the verses discussed above, then, pardon me if I am less than convinced).
I think you need to take your issue up with the author of the quran sun. For instance
082.001 - When the heaven becomes cleft asunder,
082.002 - And when the stars become dispersed,
082.003 - And when the seas are made to flow forth,
082.004 - And when the graves are laid open,
Can you name me a single physically impossible event on there? Anything "miraculous"?
YET, you still are dead sure of the mechanics of evolution, which we haven't seen or verified with absolute certainty, and only theorised upto this point in time. I'd say that the burden of proof of evolution is on you. Going by your logic, I believe what the Book says about the creation of mankind, i.e. created you from a self/nafs and from it, its mate. Nothing more, nothing less. No extrapolations or theories of equating that "self/nafs" to a single cell organism evolving into present day humans and animals, etc. etc. Because none of that is mentioned in the Book. If any of it is so mentioned, I am very interested to know, so kindly please point the pertinent verses out to me.
Pardon me for being skeptical, but I am afraid to attribute anything to God which I am not sure of.
Not at all. Nobody said I was "dead sure" except for you.
which we haven't seen or verified with absolute certainty, and only theorised upto this point in time
As opposed to what exactly? Can you name me a single aspect of the natural sciences (consider that theology isn't even worth being included here) that has absolute certainty apart from mathematics, death, and birth? What's in bold is just not correct. There's actually a difference between "certain" and "almost certain".
http//www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/theory.htm
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.htmlNo extrapolations or theories of equating that "self/nafs" to a single cell organism evolving into present day humans and animals, etc. etc. Because none of that is mentioned in the Book. If any of it is so mentioned, I am very interested to know, so kindly please point the pertinent verses out to me.
It's sad that you have to neglect the work of early muslims who made science what it is, taking no less than quranic ideals as their source of inspiration. Take William Draper who gave credit to where credit was due
Sacred science, as interpreted by the Fathers of the Church, demonstrated these facts 1. That the date of Creation was comparatively recent, not more than four or five thousand years before Christ; 2. That the act of Creation occupied the space of six ordinary days; 3. That the Deluge was universal, and that the animals which survived it were preserved in an ark; 4. That Adam was created perfect in morality and intelligence, that he fell, and that his descendants have shared in his sin and his fall.
Of these points and others that might be mentioned there were two on which ecclesiastical authority felt that it must insist. These were 1. The recent date of Creation; for, the remoter that event, the more urgent the necessity of vindicating the justice of God, who apparently
-188-
had left the majority of our race to its fate, and had reserved salvation for the few who were living in the closing ages of the world; 2. The perfect condition of Adam at his creation, since this was necessary to the theory of the fall, and the plan of salvation.
Theological authorities were therefore constrained to look with disfavor on any attempt to carry back the origin of the earth, to an epoch indefinitely remote, and on the Mohammedan theory of the evolution of man from lower forms, or his gradual development to his present condition in the long lapse of time.
From the puerilities, absurdities, and contradictions of the foregoing statement, we may gather how very unsatisfactory this so-called sacred science was. And perhaps we may be brought to the conclusion to which Dr. Shuckford, above quoted, was constrained to come, after his wearisome and unavailing attempt to cordinate its various parts "As to the Fathers of the first ages of the Church, they were good men, but not men of universal learning."
And yes, there are quranic verses on this. For instance
082.007 - Who created you, then made you complete, then made you symmetrical?
082.008 - Into whatever form He pleased He constituted you.
And
064.003 - He created the heavens and the earth with truth, and He formed you, then made goodly your forms, and to Him is the ultimate resort.
Notice the element of time here. The fact remains that the greatest thinkers (Ibn Sina, Al-Haytham, etc) of the golden age of islam all subscribed to "evolution" long before Darwin and others. These people fathered science, nothing less.
A good read - it shows that we don't actually need "miracles" to explain anything of our origins
http//www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html
Consider that the Earth is 1/3 the age of the universe, or in quranic terms, 2/6. Does that ring a bell?
Peace Br. OPF,
The verses quoted by you are as follows (All literal translations)
1064 - "For them the good news in the life the present/the worldly life and in the end (other life), (there is) no exchange/replacement/substitution to God's words/expressions, that it is the winning/triumph, the great."
634 - "And messengers from before you had been lied to/denied, so they were patient on what they were denied (rejected) and they were harmed mildly, until Our victory/aid came to them, and (there is) no exchanger to God's words/expressions; and from the messengers' information/news had come to you."
6115 - "And your Lord's word/expression (was/is) completed truthfully and justly/equitably, (there is) no exchanger/replacer to His words/expressions, and He is the hearing/listening, the knowledgeable."
1827 - "And read/recite what was inspired/transmitted to you from your Lord's Book , (there is) no exchanger/replacer/substitutor to His words/expressions, and you will never/not find from other than Him a shelter/refuge."
The above verses talk about His words/expressions. They either relate to the Book or to His promise. To interpret it as anything else is no more than an opinion. Let's see the other verses
3030 - "So keep up your face/front to the religion, (as) a submitter/Moslem/Unifier of God , God's nature/manner/religion which He created/originated the people on it, (there is) no replacement/substitution to God's creation, that (is) the religion the straight/valuable, and but most of the people do not know.
It can be seen that God had created all mankind on His nature and there can be no change is that creation nor in manner thereof. Further, if it meant to be all-inclusive, it could have said, "all(Kul) creation" or "creations".
3360 - "If (E) the hypocrites and those whom in their hearts/minds (is) sickness/disease and the spreaders of agitating rumors and bad news to provoke people in the city/town do not end/stop, We will urge/attract (influence) you (to get rid of) with them, then they do not become a neighbor to you in it except a few ."
3361 - "Cursed/humiliated wherever they were defeated/caught up with, they were taken/punished, and they were killed killingly."
3362 - "(Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah."We can see what was the unchanging practice that the Book is talking about considering all the contextual verses, i.e. the hypocrites, those with sickness in their hearts and the rumor-mongers, they are cursed in that they will always be caught up, punished and killed.
3542 - "And they swore/made oath by God their rights'/oath's utmost if (E) a warner/giver of notice came to them they will be/become more guided than any (of) the nations, so when a warner/giver of notice came to them, did not (nothing) increased them except hastening away with aversion."
3543 - "Arrogance in the earth/Planet Earth, and the bad's/evil's/harm's deceit/scheme, does not surround/afflict except with its people, so do they wait (for) the first's/beginner's manner/law ? So you will never/not find for God's law/manner (an) exchange/replacement, and you will never/not find for God's law/manner a change/movement."We can see which one of God's law/manner the Book is referring to when all the contextual verses are read as they are supposed to be read, i.e. there will be no change in the fact that the evil schemes of the evil-doers will afflict only those who concoct them.
4820 - "God promised you many winnings/spoils of war, you take/receive it, so He hurried/hastened for you this, and He prevented/stopped the peoples' hands from you, and for it to be an evidence/sign to the believers, and He guides you (to) a straight/direct way/path."
4821 - "And another you did not become capable/overpowering on it, God had taken care of/surrounded with it, and God was/is on each thing capable/able."
4822 - "And if those who disbelieved fought you, they would have turned away (on) the backs/ends, then they do no find a guardian/ally, and nor a victorior/savior."
4823 - "God's law/manner which had past/expired from before, and you will never/not find for God's law/manner an exchange/replacement."We can see which one of God's law/manner the Book is referring to when all the contextual verses are read as they are supposed to be read, i.e. there will be no change in the fact that if the disbelievers fought you, they would find no guardian/ally and a saviour and will turn away on their backs.
Now, I AM interested... Who runs that site, anyway? And why did you take that information on its face value and not verify its claims?
I am a little uncomfortable with that. For Abraham, you said that he died a long time ago. Since we did not see or verify the Book's verses, so the burden to prove anything "supernatural" is on us. For what will happen after our deaths, you claim to say that the Book says it will happen and that is all you need to know, without touching on the fact that there are more than a few verses which detail the events surrounding that phenomenon and how you established that it won't violate the laws of God (if it was based on the verses discussed above, then, pardon me if I am less than convinced). YET, you still are dead sure of the mechanics of evolution, which we haven't seen or verified with absolute certainty, and only theorised upto this point in time. I'd say that the burden of proof of evolution is on you. Going by your logic, I believe what the Book says about the creation of mankind, i.e. created you from a self/nafs and from it, its mate. Nothing more, nothing less. No extrapolations or theories of equating that "self/nafs" to a single cell organism evolving into present day humans and animals, etc. etc. Because none of that is mentioned in the Book. If any of it is so mentioned, I am very interested to know, so kindly please point the pertinent verses out to me.
Pardon me for being skeptical, but I am afraid to attribute anything to God which I am not sure of.
Peace
-
Br. OPF,
Thanks for creating a new thread for this topic. Pardon me, if I came out accusatory or derogatory in my post. I just want to challenge an understanding before accepting it. Rest assured I do not intend to post my arguments just to prove anybody wrong here. They are just the same questions and justifications that I would pose to my own self. Kindly allow me some time to absorb the info from your posts and draft a reply.
Peace
-
Greetings Sharpoo1,
I have been following the other threads with your postings on polygamy, etc. and have to say that I agree with you about the beginning of Surah An-nisaa pretty much....inasmuch that I feel that something is amiss in our understanding. With that in mind, I've been looking at dictionaries all day today. When I looked at the first ayah, I saw something that I haven't seen others speak about.
In my understanding of the Arabic, what I see is
"O Mankind! Be conscious of your Sustainer Who has created you out of one entity (nafs ) and out of IT (haa -feminine pronoun suffix, referring back to the one entity) created ITS (haa - feminine pronoun suffix) mate/fellow/like and dispersed from the two (min humaa)...
It seems that God isn't speaking of men and women in that sense -- if He was, then it follows that man was made from woman!! Hence, I've been pouring over different understandings of RiJaaLaa KaTHeeRan and NiSaAn, but have yet to reach a solid conclusion -- LL has four pages for RJL alone. That will take me some time to think about and understand. But it is obvious that 'men' is by no means the primary meaning.
But, here's what it seems to me to be at this time (continuing from above)
...a multitude going out on foot and things forgotten. And remain conscious of God whom you ask from it (masculine pronoun with bi) and of these places of origin. Indeed God is ever watchful over you.
Also, what if the word that is normally translated as 'orphans' isn't 'orphans'?
Hahns Wehr gives the alternative definition of 'single, unique of its kind'.
That sure throws a different light on the passage and goes along with my understanding of the beginning.
I'm also stuck at 'aMWaal' that's normally translated as the possessions of the orphans. I want to see what Lane's Lexicon says, but studyquran.co.uk 's Vol. 8 is messed up -- it is actually Vol. 1, so I can't look it up. Can anyone help me out?
But since the thread is moving on, I thought I'd throw this out to you all and see what comes of it.
-
Greeting to you as well, sister ILisa,
Nice to read your input in this regard. I am still getting my head around Br. OPF's post. It is gonna take me sometime because there are a lot of verse which talk about creation and one has to take all of them into consideration. Anyway, on to your post
In my understanding of the Arabic, what I see is
"O Mankind! Be conscious of your Sustainer Who has created you out of one entity (nafs ) and out of IT (haa -feminine pronoun suffix, referring back to the one entity) created ITS (haa - feminine pronoun suffix) mate/fellow/like and dispersed from the two (min humaa)...
This is where I'm stuck, because it seems that God isn't speaking of men and women in that sense -- if He was, then it follows that man was made from woman!! Hence, I've been pouring over different understandings of RiJaaLaa KaTHeeRan and NiSaAn, but have yet to reach a conclusion -- LL has four pages for RJL alone. That will take me some time to think about and understand. But it is obvious that 'men' is by no means the primary meaning.
About 41... what I have presently understood from it very similar to your understanding. God created a self/nafs and from the self/nafs, God created its partner/spouse (zawjaha) and from them (the self/nafs and its partner/spouse) came men and women. For the feminine pronoun suffix, I think it is probably because the reference is neither to man or woman, but the reference is to "it", which prompts the use of such a suffix. It could have as easy to use the word "NisaA" (or "Rijaal" for that matter) if either were to be attributed as the first creation.
I came across another similar verse, 7189, which basically almost says the same thing and is written in almost the same manner but it elaborates the concept a bit to fill in some blanks
7189 - "He is who created you from one self, and He made/created from it its spouse to be tranquil/settle/secure to it, so when he covered/had sexual intercourse with her she carried/bore a light weight/pregnancy, so she passed with it, so when she became heavy, they (B) called God their (B)'s Lord "If (E) You gave us correct/righteous, we will be/become (E) from the thankful/grateful." (Literal translation)
Now I think what this verse does is basically fills in the gap (the "how" in 41 that was between "the self/nafs and its partner/spouse" and "from them, scattered many men and women", i.e. How did many men and women come from the two. But unfortunately, that just made the matter even more confusing, because now the "self/nafs and its partner/spouse" seem like a regular man and woman to me. Now that takes me back to my original interpretation that there was a self/nafs and from that self, both us and our spouses were created. Further, the verse doesn't start with "O' mankind", which implies that whoever reads the verse, be it male or female, can relate to it without considering who came first, man or woman. Furthermore, in 41, "An-Nas" is normally translated into "Mankind" which makes it complicated in the sense that if the address is "mankind" then how can it say "you and your spouse", i.e. mankind and its spouse? Now the literal translation is "the people", i.e. everyone. So the addressee is each person who reads the verse and thus, one can relate to "you and your spouse".
Anyway, my two cents but I am not a 100% convinced about it. Maybe a further reading will help.
Also, what if the word that is normally translated as 'orphans' isn't 'orphans'?
Hahns Wehr gives the alternative definition of 'single, unique of its kind'.
That sure throws a different light on the passage and goes along with my understanding of the beginning.
I'm also stuck at 'aMWaal' that's normally translated as the possessions of the orphans. I want to see what Lane's Lexicon says, but studyquran.co.uk 's Vol. 8 is messed up -- it is actually Vol. 1, so I can't look it up. Can anyone help me out?
But since the thread is moving on, I thought I'd throw this out to you all and see what comes of it.
I am afraid I can't be of much help here because when I looked up the root word of "alyatama", i.e. "Ya-Ta-Miim", it just implies a fatherless person. A further clarification of the usage of the word may be obtained from its other occurences from the Book. Apart from its occurences in Chapter 4, "alyatama" is used in one more instance in 2220.
2220 - "In the present world and the end (other life), and they ask/question you about Al-Yatama say "Correction/repair (doing good) for them (is) best, and if you mix/mingle/associate with them, so (they are) your brothers, and God knows the corrupting from the correcting/repairing , and if God wanted/willed, He would have caused burden/hardship to you , that God (is) glorious/mighty, wise/judicious."
In that regard, our behavious towards them may hint as to who the "Al-yatama" are, keeping in mind their basic root
(1) Correcting/Repairing (perhaps their situation/plight) for them is best.
(2) If we mix/associate with them, it makes them our brethren/brothers.
(3) If God willed, He would have caused burden/hardship on us (perhaps that same burden/hardship that they are facing)Now what class of people would fit the above? Now, if we consider the usual sense in which "orphan" is used, fits in nicely with the above, except maybe the first condition. Correcting/Repairing (islahunlahum) implies restoring something to its original condition. For the orphan, one can't bring his father (or parents) back, so there can be no "Islah" for him, nor could one consider oneself as their father (or parents) as adopted children are not given the same status as one's own children.
The only other group of people that I can think of are people who migrate from other countries under unfavourable conditions, or are refugees in some other country. As they are without any support or protection in the new country, they can be considered to fall under the umbrella of "Ya-Ta-Miim", because a person's native country has somewhat a similar role as a father, i.e. offers protection, identity, support, shelter etc. The thing is that all the three conditions fit very nicely when "Al-yatama" is taken to mean refugees or forced migrants. Correcting their plight would mean to give them everything that their own home country can be expected to offer. Mixing with them to make them our brethren would mean not to treat them as outsiders (which is exactly what the corruptors will not do, as God distinguishes them in the verse) and furthermore, God warns that if he had willed we could have found ourselves in the same situation as they are. Also, the fact that their is an "Al" prefixed to the "yatama" hints that a specific kind of "yatama" is being referred to, so to assign the regular "yatama" meaning to it might not be correct. Also, it also connects 41 to the rest of the following verses in the sense that it mentions "scattered men and women", hinting at men and women from different domiciles.
Anyway, thanks for pointing out your understanding. It has helped a lot.
Peace
-
-
Greetings Sharp001,
Guess I was looking at it in a more cosmic sense, not thinking of what 'group of people', but I see the point you're making as well. However, do you know what the basis is for using the masculine form of ZWJ with the feminine pronoun?
Well, honestly speaking, I am not too proficient on the Arabic language, but for my knowledge, could you tell me if the feminine pronoun that you are referring to is the "ha" at the end of "Zawj"? If that is the case, could you tell me what would have the masculine pronoun and an instance in the Book where "Zawj" has been used in the book with the same masculine pronoun?
Thanks and peace
-
Hmmm..... interesting question....
Well, off the bat, if it were speaking in the masculine sense, the phrase would be ZWJtuh (as in his mate/wife/etc.). As for ZWJ and pronouns, I have checked openburhan and found that there are 29 forms of the root Z-W-J in 80 occurrences in the Qur'an. I haven't gone through them all (no time now), but at a glance at the beginning of the list, I see several forms, taking 'K' and 'hu' and 'ha' as pronouns - seems to run the gamut. But of interest is that ZWJ is translated as 'wife'.
As far as I'm concerned, this is going to take a lot more understanding to clear this up - unless the more learned among us comments to help me out!
-
Hmmm..... interesting question....
Well, off the bat, if it were speaking in the masculine sense, the phrase would be ZWJtuh (as in his mate/wife/etc.). As for ZWJ and pronouns, I have checked openburhan and found that there are 29 forms of the root Z-W-J in 80 occurrences in the Qur'an. I haven't gone through them all (no time now), but at a glance at the beginning of the list, I see several forms, taking 'K' and 'hu' and 'ha' as pronouns - seems to run the gamut. But of interest is that ZWJ is translated as 'wife'.
As far as I'm concerned, this is going to take a lot more understanding to clear this up - unless the more learned among us comments to help me out!
Count me in as one of those who would benefit from such comments. But as an opinion, I think "ZWJ" just means spouse. Otherwise, when it talks about companions in the afterlife, does it mean that only men will have such companions? I think that the word "ZWJ" itself is a feminine word, just like how you would address a ship as a "she", which is why it takes feminine pronouns when the word is used on its own. I hope I am making sense.
Anyway, like you said, comments would be welcome.
Peace
-
From http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm
Zay-Waw-Jiim = to couple/join/pair/unite/wed, marriage, a pair, a fellow or like, spouse.
zawwajnaa (perf. 1st. pl. vb.2) we wedded, gave in marriage or pair them.
yuzawwiju (impf. 3rd. m. sing. vb.2) - he conjoins/mixes.
zuwwijat (passive perfect. 3rd. f. sing. vb.2) - is paired/united.
zaujun (noun) - wife, husband, pair, kind.
zaujaan (nominative)
zaujain (acc. noun. dual) - husband and wife, tow kinds/pairs, comrade, one of the pair, male or female.
azwaaj (noun. pl.) - wives, husbands, pairs, kinds.zawj n. com. (pl. azwaj) - 225, 235, 2102, 2230, 2232, 2234, 2240, 2240, 315, 41, 412, 420, 420, 457, 6139, 6143, 719, 7189, 924, 1140, 133, 1323, 1338, 1588, 1672, 1672, 2053, 20117, 20131, 2190, 225, 236, 2327, 246, 2574, 267, 26166, 3021, 3110, 334, 336, 3328, 3337, 3337, 3350, 3350, 3352, 3353, 3359, 3511, 3636, 3656, 3722, 3858, 396, 396, 408, 4211, 4211, 4312, 4370, 507, 5149, 5345, 5552, 567, 581, 6011, 6011, 6414, 661, 663, 665, 7030, 7539, 788
zawwaja vb. (II)
perf. act. 3337, 4454, 5220
impf. act. 4250
perf. pass. 817Lane's Lexicon, Volume 3, pages 432, 433
-
Arabic nouns have to be either feminine or masculine. The word "nafs" is feminine. This is a "gammatical" gender and has nothing to do with the semantic gender. When we read "whoever kills a "nafs" not in self defense..." we will not understand it as "whoever kills a female". Same thing with zawj, which is grammatically masculine.
Adjectives will follow its feminine gender (if it is grammatically feminine), verbs will follow the feminine conjugation and pronouns as well, as in "yaa 'ayyatuhan nafsul muTma'inna, irja3ii ilaa rabbikiki raaDiyatan mardiyya,fadkhuli fii 3ibaadi wadkhlii jannatii" verse 8927-30, where we find it ALL in the feminine, but it is not about women or females.
-
Arabic nouns have to be either feminine or masculine. The word "nafs" is feminine. This is a "gammatical" gender and has nothing to do with the semantic gender. When we read "whoever kills a "nafs" not in self defense..." we will not understand it as "whoever kills a female". Same thing with zawj, which is grammatically masculine.
Adjectives will follow its feminine gender (if it is grammatically feminine), verbs will follow the feminine conjugation and pronouns as well, as in "yaa 'ayyatuhan nafsul muTma'inna, irja3ii ilaa rabbikiki raaDiyatan mardiyya,fadkhuli fii 3ibaadi wadkhlii jannatii" verse 8927-30, where we find it ALL in the feminine, but it is not about women or females.
Sister Samia,
Thanks for your contribution to this topic. Might I ask you the same question that I have put to Br. Wakas, i.e. how do understand 41 and 7189 in terms of ZWJ?
Also, I would like to hear your as well as others' view on my second post above. I would appreciate it very much.
Thanks and Peace
-
Yes, thank you Wakas and Samia.
But as Sharp001 was saying, and back to my original post concerning 41, is God talking about Creation in general? You, know, a kind of yin/yang principle?? That's the point I was driving at. Because yin and yang - masculine and feminine principles in creation need one another to balance out, hence my focus on Hahns Wehr's definition for "alyataamaa" as being "single, unique of its kind".
At the beginning of ayah one, we are reminded that God is the Sustainer who has created us out of one entity. If you're thinking in purely man/woman terms, does that imply that we literally have a soul mate?
Again, the point I was driving at is that maybe we need to look at things from a bit of a different perspective than is traditional to understand how all the ayat at the beginning of the surah fit together. That's all.
Again, thank you for your input.
-
Peace
What about "nafs" being "a living organism", and the "zawj" part refering to "cell's division or cell's process of reproduction ! I haven't checked yet the validity of this understanding through all the occurences, so it might not be correct.
This would endorce evolution theory as it says all living organisms are descending from the same basic cell.
-
Salaam Aleikum,
Someone, that is an interesting approach, I also have an alternative view on the concept of Azwaj when it comes to the verses concerning creation and origins of Mankind.
From my upcoming book "The Phases of the Universe and the Quran"
235 "And We told early Mankind/Adam and all by which it is united/Azwaj , Reside in this existence where you can find everything for your nourishment and development and partake the fruit (results) thereof as you please. But do not go near the dispute of who is of better origins . Or, you will become those that displace your goals and equality from its rightful place and will become oppressors/Zalimeen.
Adam=Human skin, Human being, Man, Person, Intelligent Person, Brown Man, Human Race, Mankind, Civilized Person, Person who is created from different substances, Person in possession of different powers, One who has heirs, One who enjoys the conforts of Life, One who is by nature social and hard.
Azwaj= That in which individuals are united/mingle, mate, companion, individual when consorting with one another, kind, species, class of sex, pair, couple, each of a pair.
Jannah= Garden with such extensive growth the ground is hidden by the foilage, coming from the root JNN= hidden/covered.
Al-Shajara= Matter of controversy, dispute, stock or origin of a person, tree, plant having a trunk.
Zalimeen= Those that displace something from its rightful place, Those that replace good with evil, Those that oppress, Those that do wrong against Mankind. Coming from Zulm = To displace something from its rightful place = Replace good with evil = Relegate the truth = Transgression = Oppression = Violation of human rights = Wrongdoing.
If you branch off into casts, sects, and rivalry, you shall replace your paradise with hell. 2213, 465 1019, 20117-118.
-
Thank you, Arnold.
Fascinating work!
Do you have more to share with us at this time to shed more light on this topic? Your understanding would have to shed a very different light on a number of ayat that are in dispute here on Free-minds these days, particularly the beginning of Surah An-Nisaa.
-
Peace
What about "nafs" being "a living organism", and the "zawj" part refering to "cell's division or cell's process of reproduction ! I haven't checked yet the validity of this understanding through all the occurences, so it might not be correct.
This would endorce evolution theory as it says all living organisms are descending from the same basic cell.
That was covered in the original post, not in this thread.
I came across another similar verse, 7189, which basically almost says the same thing and is written in almost the same manner but it elaborates the concept a bit to fill in some blanks
7189 - "He is who created you from one self, and He made/created from it its spouse to be tranquil/settle/secure to it, so when he covered/had sexual intercourse with her she carried/bore a light weight/pregnancy, so she passed with it, so when she became heavy, they (B) called God their (B)'s Lord "If (E) You gave us correct/righteous, we will be/become (E) from the thankful/grateful." (Literal translation)
Now I think what this verse does is basically fills in the gap (the "how" in 41 that was between "the self/nafs and its partner/spouse" and "from them, scattered many men and women", i.e. How did many men and women come from the two. But unfortunately, that just made the matter even more confusing, because now the "self/nafs and its partner/spouse" seem like a regular man and woman to me. Now that takes me back to my original interpretation that there was a self/nafs and from that self, both us and our spouses were created. Further, the verse doesn't start with "O' mankind", which implies that whoever reads the verse, be it male or female, can relate to it without considering who came first, man or woman. Furthermore, in 41, "An-Nas" is normally translated into "Mankind" which makes it complicated in the sense that if the address is "mankind" then how can it say "you and your spouse", i.e. mankind and its spouse? Now the literal translation is "the people", i.e. everyone. So the addressee is each person who reads the verse and thus, one can relate to "you and your spouse".
Do read on. The same pair are shown to be idolatrous. What would be the context of 7195? Who has no senses?
-
Do read on. The same pair are shown to be idolatrous. What would be the context of 7195? Who has no senses?
Peace Br. OPF,
I am still unable to give much time to the forum, but I felt that I need to clarify this post. I am probably misinterpreting your intent, but are you saying that the believing couple goes through different process of creation than 7189? The believing couple also ask for a righteous child (37100-102). The point is that the process is the same upto asking for a righteous child, after the birth of whom, the believers and idolators are distinguished.
-
Peace Br. OPF,
I am still unable to give much time to the forum, but I felt that I need to clarify this post. I am probably misinterpreting your intent, but are you saying that the believing couple goes through different process of creation than 7189? The believing couple also ask for a righteous child (37100-102). The point is that the process is the same upto asking for a righteous child, after the birth of whom, the believers and idolators are distinguished.
No, no. There are two issues - what would be the criteria needed for idolatry to be a valid act by a creature of any sort? Can rocks commit idolatry? Who is addressed as physically senseless in 7195? As for asking of a righteous child, I dont think there is anything human-like about that - unless you want to say that God and the Earth are also human-like.
-
The REAL question is how much influence has there been on our species during the 500,000 year period prior to our current civilization.
If the 'lost book of Enki' has ANY validity we may have Planet X to thank for our
hybrid natures we struggle with every day of our lives...Daud
