Did God punish and kill innocent children too?
-
Another verse that bothers me is 7127. Why would Noah say such an illogical thing?
This is why should not rely on only one translation. See Shabbirs translation on the same verse. It says different things than the free-mind translation
Shabbir 7127
If you should leave them, they will mislead Your servants and they will only beget division and ingratitude.Free-minds 7127
If you are to leave them, then they will misguide Your servants and they will only give birth to a wicked rejecter.Conclusion
As we can see in Shabbir's translation above, the word wicked rejecter is not even mentioned. the word wicked rejecter is only mentioned in the free-minds translation.
Therefore the whole meaning of the verse can change. Don't use only one translation. Cross-reference. And even better, learn arabic to understand the verses fully from their arabic meaning. -
Peace Arnab
Okey, i see
I don't know if people are born bad, but yes, that might be a possibility too. What does quran or science says about children being born bad, does you have any quranic or scientific info on children being born bad? hmm
-
No, if you read verse 1865 the word used is "abadin" (servant)
Aren?t angels God?s servants?
And if you read 1874 the only reason one can say that the youth's time of death had come is because the abd had, in fact, killed him. If you are implying that the youth was dying anyway, this is pure conjecture. There is no proof to substantiate that statement.
I did not imply that the youth was dying when God's servant killed him.
Are you claiming to know more than God on this subject?
The reason I ask, is because he knows what we know not even about what is to be.
In the case of 1874 the servant killed the youth under God's orders due to the reasons outlined in 1880The servant saw that the boy was going to be a bad person in the future, thereby suggesting that the servant was an angel messenger since only messengers are told about the future. I don?t need to know more than God to know that God doesn?t permit random killing.
Why do you automatically assume that what a PROPHET says is illogical?
Why wouldn't you first consider that you don't fully understand the verse?
To me, it is perfectly logical.
Salam,
ArnabI think what Noah said is illogical because unbelievers can have children who grow up to become believers. However, it is possible that my understanding of that verse needs improvement. Thus far however, Noah seemed to have said something completely illogical.
Salam Supernaut and David K,
Why is it so difficult to believe that some people can be born "bad?"
I don?t believe people are born good or bad. I believe people become good or bad. Children however are simply good because they?re innocent. I don?t believe God would punish children so terribly for whatever sins they?ve committed because they can?t be held accountable for their so-called ?sins?.
-
I don't know if people are born bad, but yes, that might be a possibility too. What does quran or science says about children being born bad, does you have any quranic or scientific info on children being born bad? hmm
Salam,
Here is a loosely related verse
1253(Free-Minds Translation)"And I do not make myself free of blame, for the soul is inclined to sin, except what my Lord has mercy on. My Lord is Forgiving,
Merciful."But, obviously, verse 7127 proves that it is a possibility that not everyone is born "good." Unless, this is only true pre-flood and does not apply now.
Free-Minds "If you are to leave them, then they will misguide Your servants and they will only give birth to a wicked rejecter."
But most interestingly 497-498 might put the whole subject to rest on the original question posted by supernaut
(Free-Minds Translation)
Those whom the Angels take, while they had wronged their souls; they said "What situation were you in?", they said "We were oppressed on Earth." They said "Was God's Earth not wide enough that you could emigrate in it?" To these their abode will be Hell; what a miserable destiny!Except for those who were oppressed from the men, women, and children who could not devise a plan nor could be guided to a way.
Salam,
Arnab -
Aren?t angels God?s servants?
Yes, but so can humans be God's servants. It does not say almalikah.
The servant saw that the boy was going to be a bad person in the future, thereby suggesting that the servant was an angel messenger since only messengers are told about the future.
No, this does not suggest that the servant is an Angel. However you are right that it does suggest the servant is a messenger.
I don?t need to know more than God to know that God doesn?t permit random killing.
It was not a random killing it was God's will.
Anyway, let's stick to the topic.
Everything discussed thus far has been on topic. Wording of verses is paramount to understanding the meanings. It's part of exploring the topic.
Salam,
Arnab -
But, obviously, verse 7127 proves that it is a possibility that not everyone is born "good." Unless, this is only true pre-flood and does not apply now.
God?s ways are unchanging (3362) and human nature is unchanging (3030).
But most interestingly 497-498 might put the whole subject to rest on the original question posted by supernaut
497-98 say that God won?t punish weak men, women and children for not emigrating from a land where they were oppressed by people. Those verses don?t answer my question.
Yes, but so can humans be God's servants. It does not say almalikah.
No, this does not suggest that the servant is an Angel. However you are right that it does suggest the servant is a messenger.
It doesn?t say Al Insaan (human) either.
The servant had to be an angel because no human has the authority to kill someone for being an unbeliever and much less someone who will be an unbeliever. The angel messenger was just carrying out its duty of terminating a life. This verse is interesting in that it complicates the subject of pre-destination, but we?ll not discuss that right now.
It was not a random killing it was God's will.
And God doesn?t will that we kill people for what they believe (2256 and 6151). Remember, God doesn?t change, so killing unbelievers wasn?t okay in the past; it?s always been murder and murder is evil.
-
It doesn?t say Al Insaan (human) either.
I never said it did. One can not say either human or angel.
The servant had to be an angel because no human has the authority to kill someone for being an unbeliever and much less someone who will be an unbeliever. The angel messenger was just carrying out its duty of terminating a life. This verse is interesting in that it complicates the subject of pre-destination, but we?ll not discuss that right now.
I disagree that the person had to be an angel.
And God doesn?t will that we kill people for what they believe (2256 and 6151).
Remember, God doesn?t change, so killing unbelievers wasn?t okay in the past; it?s always been murder and murder is evil.Oh, really? Then what happened to Sodom and Gommarah? Isn't this exactly what we are discussing? The fact that God does in fact destroy towns/cities full off people for their transgressions.
Salam,
Arnab -
Salam,
I read the article on submission.org
Here are my comments
-
The author uses conjecture to determain that the servant is an angel. We can not conclude either way. Although, personally, I would say the servant is a human. But this is opinion. The whole Hadith story about the man being named Khidar is not based on fact either.
-
The author mis-translates 1867 and then concludes from this that the servant is an angel.
-
The author mis-understands and mis-translates 1880 by saying that the youth did not transgress or that he was killed before he committed any sin.
He was already burdening his parents with his disobedience and one can wonder whether the youth would only continue to do so to a greater degree in the future. -
What utter non-sense! to say that the servant "disappears from the scene as mysteriously as he appears" is PURE CONJECTURE. The narrative simply ends....the servant does not disappear in a puff of smoke or some other fairytale nonsense. This author has QUITE the imagination.
The FACT is the narrative/story ends.
Salam,
Arnab -
-
Oh, really? Then what happened to Sodom and Gommarah? Isn't this exactly what we are discussing? The fact that God does in fact destroy towns/cities full off people for their transgressions.
You misunderstood what I said. It?s alright if God punishes unbelievers for disbelieving, but it?s not alright for humans to do the same. I thought we'd established this.
- The author mis-translates 1867 and then concludes from this that the servant is an angel.
You?re right. But they did not base their entire argument on their misunderstanding of 1867.
- The author mis-understands and mis-translates 1880 by saying that the youth did not transgress or that he was killed before he committed any sin.
He was already burdening his parents with his disobedience and one can wonder whether the youth would only continue to do so to a greater degree in the future.
1880 doesn?t say the youth was sinning as far as I know. It says that the youth would sin. But whether he was sinning or not or the fact that he would sin is immaterial since it would still be wrong for a human to have killed him.
- What utter non-sense! to say that the servant "disappears from the scene as mysteriously as he appears" is PURE CONJECTURE. The narrative simply ends....the servant does not disappear in a puff of smoke or some other fairytale nonsense. This author has QUITE the imagination.
The FACT is the narrative/story ends.
Yes, the author did assume the messenger vanished mysteriously, however, the other points the author made do make it clear that the messenger was an angel. But I guess you won?t be convinced he was, so let?s agree to disagree because this debate is going in circles now.
-
May be I am intruding in this subject bringing in something else.
What we see in fact is that God not only destroys evil people, He also destroys good people. In fact God destroys all people at one time or another. In fact we all die, children die independently of them committing hateful acts or not.
I wonder if what God is doing in the cases you bring forth is not simply pointing to us His natural laws. In fact it is surely true that nations and people are eventually destroyed, may be by their own wickedness, may be because they become soft and uncapable of resisting hard times, may be their time has come and God wants to have other things on earth, finally birth and death ar God's. When we get stories like the destroyed cities, Ad, the people of Noah and all those that He says were destroyed because of their bad ways what we are being told is simply that for peoples as well as for each individual person, each behaviour has its consequences and you cannot escape them. Nations that become arrogant and god-like will fall, they have always fallen, precisely because of their blindeness.
On the other hand there is no question about the good ones being punished. They die because everything dies and they suffer because life as God tells us is a trial. We all die, much sooner usually than our nation or people may die, and for the akhira God will judge each person, not the nations, the nations were already judged on earth. God has not cheated us on that, we know it. We know too that innocent people are murdered and that the murderer may live undisturbed. But that is the whole point of faith, you believe in the akhira or you don't. What about earthquakes and cyclons and uncalled for wars with all their pains? Are all those who suffer them guilty of anything?
And one of you has mentioned one name of God which I find particularly comforting the Inheritor. I am sure He inherits everything, even our sweetest dreams and most noble desires. They are not lost. They are in His hands. He is the most Merciful, and He keeps everything and makes frutiful in the wisest way.
Salaam
-
Shabbir 7127
If you should leave them, they will mislead Your servants and they will only beget division and ingratitude.In 3030 we are told all humans are born with the fitra in them, the nature of the Deen, so no one can be born as a wicked rejector. This is why the FM translation creates a contradiction.
comes from Walada means to bring forth, to give birth too. It can be used for real birth, or for creating something in society. Like saying, if I leave chocolate on my desk, it will give birth to some extra kilo's on my body.
Lane's Lexicons mentions the saying Al-Ardh Al-Balka taliduu as-Sa3frana. The land of Al-Balka produces safron.
So Walada can be used metaphorically. What is created in 7127? It says they will eventualy create
Fajran kaffaran. Fajra comes from Fajara and means to cut or divide lengthwise, break open, vent, incline/decline/deviate, dawn/sunrise/daybreak, source, abundantly and suddenly, ample bounty/generosity, a place from which water flows.
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/FA.jpg
Kaffaran comes fro Kafara, which means farmer. A farmer buries things and closes his eyes for the sun. This created the further understanding of burying the truth, burying the rights of others. To close the eyes for the obvious, the truth and to resist it and thus be ingratitude for the life given to them as they want to take it away from others.
So what is given birth too? People who are the source for division (fajara) which rises towards people who want to bury other people's rights (kafara).
-
1253 (Free-Minds Translation)"And I do not make myself free of blame, for the soul is inclined to sin, except what my Lord has mercy on. My Lord is Forgiving, Merciful."
Not loosely translated, it completely neglects the root meaning sof the words used in my eyes.
Nafs inclines more to psyche then "soul". Amaratun refers to commanding something. Bilsoo means Bi-with al-soo comes from Al-Sayi, to oppress and do evil towards other people. Rabb can never be lord, as lord in english refers to someone who does not work and has no responsibility towards people, while the Arabic Rabb means the complete opposite, it refers to a lord who is resonsible for your nourishment and upbringing towards maturity. Raheem comes from Rihum, wombs, it refers rather to giving further development and nourishment then to "mercy" in the Christian salvation sense. Ghafour cannot mean forgiveness as this would contradict 997-8 and 2147 which clearly state no deed will be neglected. Ghafour means to protect, coming from Mighfar, helmet. So a better rendition of this verse would be
"And I do not make myself free of blame, for the psyche can command oppressing other people, except that my Developer to perfection has made (us for) His nourishment towards further stages. My Developer to perfection is Provider of Protection (by giving Revelation which protects society against harm if we follow it 1829)."
-
It doesnt say Al Insaan (human) either.
The servant had to be an angel because no human has the authority to kill someone for being an unbeliever and much less someone who will be an unbeliever. The angel messenger was just carrying out its duty of terminating a life. This verse is interesting in that it complicates the subject of pre-destination, but well not discuss that right now.
Or it was a person who had received revelation? Never thought of that? Plus, the Moses story is full of metaphors. Look how in the beginning the boy dissapears and the fish also. This happened where the "streams came together". Does this story metaphorically describes Moses's journey towards maturity? The young boy representing his youth which he lost when his life (fish) was lost in the 2 streams (The human world meeting with the Divine in the form of Revelation?). Then the Abd mentioned can be a metaphor for Revelation, as Moses constantly questions that commands given in it. Many translators incline more to seeing the story as a metaphor then to a real story, we must not forget 37.
-
God doesn't intervene, the laws of nature eventually react towards the deeds of the people, and so the people themselves harm their own children by dragging them into the realm of consequences. There are many children, women and innocent men dying every day by the hands of other humans, children dying of hunger and diseases. All of this lies in our hands, it is our responsibility to do something about this.
God gave us the possibilities to do so much good. To develop ourselves to the fullest. The innocent are dragged along with the guilty as long as we allow it. Death in itself is not something wrong, it is just a between phase within our development in the universe. So if the children died, they will not experience this as a crime since they can develop further without any barriers. Their parents do find these barriers for further development because of their evil deeds, they will experience Jahim=to stop something/barrier/fire and are in Jahannam=garbage dump.
So no wrong is done to those who were dragged down, as they do not carry the evil on their Nafs, they can develop further in the cosmos after death without any barriers. This is why God says that these dead are not dead, but alive. No one carries the burden of another, but this burden is not directly death itself, in my eyes it refers to barriers that stop your Nafs from further development in the cosmic evolution (Jannah).
So we must not always confuse death with punishment, the punishment is not to have the change to compensate for the wrong deeds that have been done (11114). The innocent persons who's lives were cut short on earth are not punished as they can develop further without anymore barriers. We see in death a punishment as deep within us we still doubt if there is more after death, we are scared of it, so we deem it a punishment. But the Qur'an says death itself is not the punishment, meeting your own deeds, the consequences there off, that is the punihsment IF your evil exceeds your good. And this means you must have done real evil, as every good deeds weighs 10x more then evil on your Nafs/conciousness (6160).
But we, you and me, do carry the burden of every child dying of hunger, disease and oppression as long as we do not help them (475), feed them, cure them. The innocent die mostly because of our neglectance of doing what needs to be done.
"Evil can only triumph when good men do nothing."
This is why God will protect us against many things, but He cannot protect us against Shirk (4116), taking other priorities over God's System, as as long as we do not follow His system, mankind will constantly be harmed by their own hands. And as we have free will and God does not force us (1111, He cannot protect us against our own deeds as long as we do not protect ourselves (1829, 11114, 11117)
-
Thanks so much Arnold. Salute
I knew that God didn't punish those children when It let them die in the disasters, but what I wanted to know was why didn't God prevent their deaths by telling the messengers to take them to safety along with the believers? I suppose the reason is that the messengers couldn't possibly have done that because the parents of the children would've thought that the messengers were kidnapping their children and so the blame for the deaths of those children lies solely on the unbelievers. I feel a little silly for having started this thread because the answer to my question seems obvious now. Know that I was knackered when I created this thread.
-
I do not see why you, Supernaut, should feel uncomfortable for raising any question at all, particularly something like this which, explained or not, is so hard to swallow. I think you did raise something that worries many people and it is not at all a waste of time to go over it as many times as anybody really worries. Suffering is always a trial, and even if we suffer because of thinking of others we better do it in company-
Salaam, and please, raise whatever makes you worry. We all profit from it.
-
I do not see why you, Supernaut, should feel uncomfortable for raising any question at all, particularly something like this which, explained or not, is so hard to swallow. I think you did raise something that worries many people and it is not at all a waste of time to go over it as many times as anybody really worries. Suffering is always a trial, and even if we suffer because of thinking of others we better do it in company-
Salaam, and please, raise whatever makes you worry. We all profit from it.
Salam,
You are right you know. And thank you for your kind words.
-
100% agree, there are never wrong or dumb questions, only wrong or dumb answers. I'm glad you believe I gave a good answer.