Title: Second Comment on 'Where is Allah?' Question/Comments: In God's Name, Assalaamu &Alaykum / peace, Should I start with the bad, or thegood news? Most superstitious people prefer to hear the bad news first. Sorry to disappoint you, but I want you to read the entire post. I mixed them, as needed. So please bear with me. This is not a simple matter. The Learner wrote: But, what I regret to state is that Mr. Faruq has criticised me for something which I have not written or even implied. I really do not know what to say about such a response. I request Mr. Faruq to have a look at my article again and see if my opinion is any different from what he has expressed in his response. I shall appreciate if Mr. Faruq or anyone on this list would point kindly out the statement from which Mr. Faruq has understood that I believe that God is "sitting, like some human king, on a physical throne". I am sure Mr. Faruq shall agree with me that it is indeed "ignorance" to wrongfully ascribe something to a person. May I use the technique of my brother Lomax, Or is that Clinton's? That depends on your definition of "ascribe." :-) But seriously, I received e-mails in response to my criticism to The Learner's article, one of which accused me of being drunk while doing so. That wasn't nice. Before I go any further, Please chalk this one down as a formal apology to my brother, The Learner, for issuing a blanket judgment, and not being specific, or more objective. I was accurate when I said that "I glanced" at his article. Well, at his request, I have taken a longer look at his article. I liked some things, but I was still disappointed in others. If he is open to criticism and learning, as he claimed, then he should not mind some of my observations about his writing style, and substance: He never seems to get to the point. He spends more time at paraphrasing, summarizing, and synthesizing his opponent's points than he does in replying to them. Some of his answers are somewhat weak, and not fully supported by either linguistic basis, or Qur'anic examples to make up for it. I do not think that he realizes that Jochen probably studies, with a different motive, "traditional" Islamic commentary more often than many muslim readers on this newsgroup. In general, and to me, the whole concept of having to defend the Qur'an is ludicrous when God stated that He sent it down and that He would protect it (15:9). This protection does not stop at preventing distortion (41:42), but it also entails protection from attacks by the devils of humans and jinn. In this case, neither Jochen, nor anyone else of the humans and jinn are in a position to find faults in the Qur'an. The reason is simple: There are none. Certainly, our mere human attempts to respond to missionaries' criticism may not measure up to their standards, whatever these maybe. But that has no bearing on the status of the truth in God's book, the Holy Qur'an. What we say will not change anything. Those, destined to stray will not find, other than God, a guide. In some cases, some of us actually do more harm to the reputation of the Qur'an when we defend it with our ignorance (17:85) and emotions. I personally consider One of the most contributing factors in putting Islam in a seemingly defenseless position to originate in the "traditional" commentary and hadith that people usually resort to in order to attempt to defend the Qur'an in the face of attacks by its enemies. These commentaries, including the writing of "highly acclaimed" scholars of old, such as Bukhari, Hanbal, Abu Dawood, Muslim, Ibn Katheer, and al-qurtubiyy, to name a few, promote, among other massive ignorance, the idea that God is sitting on a throne, and carried by some angels whose feet start at the depth of the earth and their heads penetrate the throne, astaghfirullah. I have, in fact, witnessed, on this newsgroup, people who quote ahaadeeth that constitute blasphemies against God, and ascribe that to the last prophet of God. It is from this hole in our theology that the likes of Jochen can penetrate and succeed in attacking the Qur'an, causing a strong and emotional reaction by muslims. People like Jochen and that fellow "Sura-like-it," -- Btw, sura, you have exceeded your deadline of one year (sept'98) to come up with a sura from a book like the Qur'an--, usually anticipate people to start quoting hadith and scholars. From what I have read thus far, this does not seem to be the the case with the Learner. However, being open to learning, I think he can use some advice. Here are a few words concerning his response to: Distance of Allah: being closer to us than our jugular vain The usage of "day" in the Qur'an The usage of in the Qur'an The usage of Arabic word " `arsh " to imply authority is commonly known. Thus when the Qur'an says that "... Allah established Himself on His throne", it means that He took charge of controlling His creation. I disagree that means "He took charge of controlling His creation." To take charge implies that: A.) Someone else was in charge, or B.) No one was in charge before. This phrase has generally been used in the Qur'an to negate the belief of those who thought that Allah did create everything that exists, but after creating everything He has delegated the management of His creation to others. Somewhat Weak! God uses a more precise expression to negate His dependence on anyone; angels inclusive. (3:97, 29:6). Thus, the word "`arsh" does not in itself signify a particular place in (or outside) the universe. No, it refers to the: heavens and earth, all that is within them, all that we do know, and all that we do not. It refers to the entire dominion, or kingship, if you will. Furthermore, when the Qur'an says that God is closer to humans than their life veins, it basically refers to His omniscience. That is not all. "closer to his jugular/life vein" indicates NOT ONLY Omniscience, but also omnipresence (2:115) and Omnipotence (2:20) as well. God is everywhere. He knows all, and can do all. He has no need for angels, or anyone else (29:6) to carry out any tasks in the universe. He can do them all. That is much simpler than the creation itself. Mr. Katz says that the meaning generally implied by the word " `arsh " cannot be taken in verse 11: 7, What this verse is telling us is not "where" was God's throne at that time, but that at that time His creation, with reference to the universe consisted primarily of water, and therefore His control, at that time was on the waters. If you think of God's being his dominion or kingship then it may bring the reader closer to the meaning. It is not just the act of control, but it also includes all physical and spiritual creation itself. This statement is quite close to what the Bible says regarding the beginning of the creation. The book of Genesis starts with the following words {Genesis 1:1-2} Sometimes, Jochen gives you the impression that he does not read the Bible he promotes and defends so fiercely. I think he reads it well, but he simply conceals his knowledge of the similarities (2:101) to put muslims on the defensive regarding the Qur'an. This is his form of retaliation to Biblical attacks by many muslims, and charges of contradiction. He applied the same sly technique with regards to "Creation from clay." Finally, Mr. Katz says that if God is closer to His creation than their life veins then why do the angels have to travel to Him in periods extending over one thousand to fifty thousand years. . . . at one place the Qur'an says that "God knows everything that man does and thinks, He is closer to man than his life vein" and at another it says that "How can you assess the grandeur of God, He is far above what you can imagine. Even the closest of His angels take thousands of years to reach Him". The two statements refer to two separate phenomena and thus are not comparable. Therefore, in my opinion, there does not arise the question of contradiction in the two statements. Was that it? Is Jochen convinced now? That was a hypothetical question, Jochen. No one can convince you but God Himself, if He so wills. Now, what about that "DAY" that measures 1,000 or even 50,000 years in our standard, and . . . which is it, anyway? I think the Learner has not yet captured the full meaning of the word here. If angels take 50,000 years to "REACH" Him, then His is still reachable, in the physical sense, and thus His grandeur is not as a great as The Learner tried to portray. Let me give you some hints: In 2:259 the man who wondered how God can revive the dead said "I stayed / slept a day or part of a day." but God replied: "no, you stayed/slept one hundred years." In 18:19 the sleepers of the cave: "We stayed/slept a day or a part of a day." But they slept 309 years according to the Qur'an. 9:36 "According to God, the number of months is twelve. [This is] in a record [made] on the DAY that God created the heavens and earth." I'm surprised that Jochen did not object to the creation process being done in one day here. Maybe he did not get that far. Now look at expressions such as "the day of judgment", "day of resurrection," "the last day," "day of reckoning." Getting warm? Here is more: 14:48 "on the DAY that the earth is changed for another, and so are the heavens." In 20:103 it says the guilty will say "you only lasted ten days." But the most eloquent amongst them will say "you have lasted but a day" (20:104). My friends, the similitude of DAY that measures 1,000 years (12:32) or 50,000 years (70:4) is that of the six days of creation. God is not talking about several separate incidents in which the angels ascend to him and take 50,000 years to do so. That is just too slow in these days of modern telecommunication techniques. No, He talks of the entire period of our existence in this world until we all return to Him. The quantitative number is metaphorical for "a long time." I do hope that The Learner did not get offended at my rather harsh criticism, and instead would consider this post as my humble attempt to give him another perspective. Peace, Answer: I have read Mr. Faruq's comments very thoroughly. I thank Mr. Faruq for spending his precious time on analyzing my writing. Moreover, I would also like to present some of my reservations on Mr. Faruq's comments. My first comment is on the last passage of Mr. Faruq. He writes: I do hope that The Learner did not get offended at my rather harsh criticism, and instead would consider this post as my humble attempt to give him another perspective. I assure Mr. Faruq and all those who have spent their precious time on reading my articles that for me good and constructive criticism, besides praying, is the only real contribution that a person can truly make to another. I do not take criticism to be an offence or an insult. I always try to take criticism as the criticiser's sincere effort in correcting my presentation and my understanding. I am not a prophet, I only present my understanding of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Obviously, I hold my understanding to be correct, but I do acknowledge the chance that it may not be. After all, it is only good and constructive criticism that can make me realize my errors and mistakes. I, therefore, am not only not offended by good and constructive criticism but am actually thankful to the person who presents his criticisms on my understandings, as this is possibly the only human way that can open the doors of correcting myself. Mr Faruq has pointed out three shortfalls in my writings. The first among these is: He never seems to get to the point. He spends more time at paraphrasing, summarizing, and synthesizing his opponent's points than he does in replying to them. I do realize that I try to present and re-present the objections raised by the article whose rebuttal I am writing. Although this exercise could sometimes become somewhat boring and cumbersome to read for others, but I do this to make sure that I have correctly understood the objections raised by the article, whose rebuttal I am writing. In writing an article to criticise another person's views or in writing a defense of a criticism, the most - MOST - important aspect is to understand the article or the criticism correctly. In my opinion, you can only effectively criticise or present an effective defense of a criticism, if you have correctly understood the article, in the first place. It is for this reason that I am reasonably certain that Mr. Katz may or may not agree with the points that I have raised in my articles, but he would (hopefully!) not blame me for misrepresentation of his writings, or for incorrectly ascribing any ideas to him. His second criticism on my style is: Some of his answers are somewhat weak, and not fully supported by either linguistic basis, or Qur'anic examples to make up for it. I would appreciate if Mr. Faruq would precisely point out such of my answers which are not supported by the Arabic language or the Qur'an. I assure him that I shall inshallah reconsider my opinion if I am convinced that my understanding is not according to the Qur'an or the Arabic language. His third criticism on my style is: I do not think that he realizes that Jochen probably studies, with a different motive, traditional" Islamic commentary more often than many muslim readers on this newsgroup. I must confess that I have not been able to fully understand this point, but I shall most certainly like to present my reservations on one the points that I have: My dear brother, I am not assigned the duty to decide about the motive of a person who criticises my opinion or understanding. I really do not have the sources to do so. Motive of a person has to do purely with his innermost feelings and desires. All that I do and try to do is to write my opinion and understanding. After all, how am I supposed to judge a person's motive with my limited knowledge. I believe that I do have the right to criticise a person's ideas, but I DO NOT have any right to pass a judgment about his motives. If Mr. Katz writes with a negative motive, he shall be held answerable for doing so. But if his motives are NOT negative and I wrongfully ascribe dishonesty and negative motives to him, then I shall be answerable for doing so. Deciding about a person's motives is God's domain. Can't we let it stay that way? Mr. Faruq writes: In general, and to me, the whole concept of having to defend the Qur'an is ludicrous when God stated that He sent it down and that He would protect it (15:9). This protection does not stop at preventing distortion (41:42), but it also entails protection from attacks by the devils of humans and jinn. In this case, neither Jochen, nor anyone else of the humans and jinn are in a position to find faults in the Qur'an. The reason is simple: There are none. I do agree with Mr. Faruq that there are NO FAULTS in the Qur'an. But I do not agree that even if there are NO FAULTS in the Qur'an humans and jinns shall not criticise the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself has referred to and answered some criticisms that the people of Makkah tried to coin and thereby hinder people from believing in the Qur'an. The Qur'an does not say anywhere that "people will not criticise the Qur'an". I believe that it is my duty, as a Muslim to respond to or arrange for a response to any and all such criticisms on the Qur'an which create doubts in the minds of people - sometimes even Muslims. Mr. Faruq writes: Certainly, our mere human attempts to respond to missionaries' criticism may not measure up to their standards, whatever these maybe. But that has no bearing on the status of the truth in God's book, the Holy Qur'an. What we say will not change anything. Those, destined to stray will not find, other than God, a guide. We are humans and therefore our efforts could only be human efforts with flaws and shortcomings. But does this mean that we should let people create doubts about the "Holy Qur'an". I think that the least that we can do is to decently respond to such criticisms. May be, our response convinces even the writer. And even if it fails to do so, it may at least save some neutral minds from going astray. As far as Mr. Faruq's statement that "Those, destined to stray will not find, other than God, a guide" is concerned, I totally agree with it. But it is not for me to decide "who" is destined to stray. I should do my job (of giving my opinion and responding to such ideals as I hold to be incorrect) and let Allah do His (of deciding "who" is to go astray). Mr Faruq writes: In some cases, some of us actually do more harm to the reputation of the Qur'an when we defend it with our ignorance (17:85) and emotions. I personally consider One of the most contributing factors in putting Islam in a seemingly defenseless position to originate in the "traditional" commentary and hadith that people usually resort to in order to attempt to defend the Qur'an in the face of attacks by its enemies. These commentaries, including the writing of "highly acclaimed" scholars of old, such as Bukhari, Hanbal, Abu Dawood, Muslim, Ibn Katheer, and al-qurtubiyy, to name a few, promote, among other massive ignorance, the idea that God is sitting on a throne, and carried by some angels whose feet start at the depth of the earth and their heads penetrate the throne, astaghfirullah. I have, in fact, witnessed, on this newsgroup, people who quote ahaadeeth that constitute blasphemies against God, and ascribe that to the last prophet of God. It is from this hole in our theology that the likes of Jochen can penetrate and succeed in attacking the Qur'an, causing a strong and emotional reaction by muslims. People like Jochen and that fellow "Sura-like-it," -- Btw, sura, you have exceeded your deadline of one year (sept'98) to come up with a sura from a book like the Qur'an--, usually anticipate people to start quoting hadith and scholars. I would not like to comment on Mr. Faruq's opinion regarding the work of the names that he has mentioned, but the point remains that if Mr. Faruq thinks that any of my clarifications has done "more harm" than good, he should very strongly present his criticism on my understanding. After all, I do not think that anyone claimed that his work was above criticism. Criticising my opinion that: "The usage of Arabic word "`arsh" to imply authority is commonly known. Thus when the Qur'an says that "... Allah established Himself on His throne", it means that He took charge of controlling His creation.", Mr. Faruq writes: I disagree that means "He took charge of controlling His creation." To take charge implies that: A.) Someone else was in charge, or B.) No one was in charge before. The phrase "thumma istawa' `la al-`arsh" (or a synonymous phrase) has been given in the Qura'n at seven instances. These are: Al-A`ra'f 7: 54; Yunus 10: 3; Al-Ra`d 13: 2; Ta'Ha' 20: 4 - 5; Al-Furqa'n 25: 39; Al-Sajadah 32: 4; and Al-Hadi'd 57: 3 In all these instances the phrase is preceded by the mention of the creation of the heavens and the earth. Thus at none of these instances does the question arise that A) Who was in charge before Allah; or B) Was anyone incharge before Allah. When the Qur'an says - as I have understood - that Allah created the heavens and the earth and then took charge of His creation, no one would ask the questions pointed out by Mr. Faruq, as these questions could only have been asked if the referred phrase was not preceded by the mention of the creation of the heavens and the earth. As, obviously, the heavens and the earth did not exist before that. Moreover, I would surely be interested in finding out what, in the opinion of Mr. Faruq, is the correct interprettation of the referred phrase. Commenting on my statement that: "This phrase has generally been used in the Qur'an to negate the belief of those who thought that Allah did create everything that exists, but after creating everything He has delegated the management of His creation to others.", Mr. Faruq states: Somewhat Weak! God uses a more precise expression to negate His dependence on anyone; angels inclusive. (3:97, 29:6). As should be quite clear, I did not say that this phrase has negated God's dependence ... What I said was different (as can be seen from my statement). Moreover, even if "delegation" is considered synonymous with "dependence" by Mr. Faruq, I would only say that why does he not consider it possible that the same meaning could have been expressed by the Qur'an in more than one ways? Commenting on my statement that: "Thus, the word "`arsh" does not in itself signify a particular place in (or outside) the universe.", Mr. Faruq writes: No, it refers to the: heavens and earth, all that is within them, all that we do know, and all that we do not. It refers to the entire dominion, or kingship, if you will. I am afraid I do not agree with Mr. Faruq's statement. The word "`arsh" in the Arabic language is not used for "heavens and earth, all that is within them, all that we do know, and all that we do not". To prove his point, Mr. Faruq is requested to give examples from the Arabic language that support his claim. The word "`arsh" like the English word "throne" is used idiomatically for "control", "government", "power" etc. And exactly like "throne" in the English language, it is not used for "heavens and earth, all that is within them, all that we do know, and all that we do not". Probably what Mr. Faruq implies is that the "throne" of Allah implies His control and power over "heavens and earth, all that is within them, all that we do know, and all that we do not". If that is the case, then I do not have any difference with him, and neither have I written in my article that contradicts this view. Commenting on my statement that: "Furthermore, when the Qur'an says that God is closer to humans than their life veins, it basically refers to His omniscience.", Mr. Faruq writes: That is not all. "closer to his jugular/life vein" indicates NOT ONLY Omniscience, but also omnipresence (2:115) and Omnipotence (2:20) as well. God is everywhere. He knows all, and can do all. He has no need for angels, or anyone else (29:6) to carry out any tasks in the universe. He can do them all. That is much simpler than the creation itself. I would like to clarify here that in my article, I have briefly given my reasoning for believing that the referred phrase basically implies omniscience of Allah. If only Mr. Faruq had pointed out the error in my reasoning it would have been easier for me to understand why, and on what basis does he differ from me. Moreover, I would also like to understand Mr. Faruq's reasoning for taking this phrase to mean anything other than Omniscience. I would also like to ask Mr. Faruq, what is his basis of understanding the Qur'an... on what basis does he say that the referred words mean so and so? I really do not think Mr. Faruq has any sound basis of saying what he has said. If the need arises I shall present a detailed analysis of the whole surah Qaf, to show that the meaning Mr. Faruq has stated is not the correct understanding of what the Qur'an is stating in these verses. Regarding some of the closing remarks in my article, Mr. Faruq writes: Was that it? Is Jochen convinced now? That was a hypothetical question, Jochen. No one can convince you but God Himself, if He so wills. I would like to clarify to all my readers that my writings are not to convince anyone. My target has never been to win any debates. I always presume that the other person is also honest. If he thinks that my writing is convincing, he shall be convinced, if he thinks that it is weak, he shall point out the weaknesses, and thereby help me. Please tell me, Mr. Faruq, why should I presume that Mr. Katz cannot be convinced? Tell me, why should I start with the paradigm that Mr. Katz is a dishonest debater? Tell me, why and on what basis should I expect Mr. Katz to think of me as an honest learner, and not be prepared to give him the same position in my mind and heart? Tell me, Mr. Faruq, with due apologies, why should I have an opinion about you that is any different from your opinion about Mr. Katz? Please tell me, how would you feel if I started calling you a dishonest debater and a person who is destined to stray, if you are not convinced of my writings? I assure you, if somebody did that to me, I would feel much more offended than any criticism can make me feel. Do you know why, Mr. Faruq? Because, criticisms on my articles criticise my abilities and understaning, but such comments challenge my integrity and my honesty, and these things I hold much more dear to myself than my intellectual abilities. I would sincerely request you Mr. Faruq that you should "do unto others as you would like them to do unto you". Whether he be a Christian or whether he be called by a Muslim name. Whether he treats you good or not. Let us just do good to others because we must. I am sure if you considered others to be honest and others considered you to be honest, the atmosphere shall become far less tense, we shall be able to listen to and read the ideas of others with more empathy and understanding. Who knows, then we might even be able to convince each other. Regarding the fifty thousands years' period Mr. Faruq says: My friends, the similitude of DAY that measures 1,000 years (12:32) or 50,000 years (70:4) is that of the six days of creation. God is not talking about several separate incidents in which the angels ascend to him and take 50,000 years to do so. That is just too slow in these days of modern telecommunication techniques. No, He talks of the entire period of our existence in this world until we all return to Him. The quantitative number is metaphorical for "a long time." What I understand from Mr. Faruq's statement is that in his opinion, the one thousand or the fifty thousand years' day refers to the total time that humans shall inhabit the earth. If my understanding is correct, then I request Mr. Faruq to kindly point out the basis of his interpretation. I am reproducing below a simple translation of the three verses. I really do not know how can a person understand from these verses what Mr. Faruq has interpretted. 22: 47 reads as: "Surely a day in the sight of your Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning" Al-Sajadah 32: 5 reads as: "He decides all affairs from the heavens to the earth then these [affairs] go up to Him in a day, the length of which is a thousand years of your reckoning." Al-Ma`arij 70: 4 translates as: "The angels and the ruh ascend upto Him in a day the length of which is fifty thousand years" These are my reservations on Mr. Faruq's comments. I do appreciate that there can be a difference of opinion in the interpretation of a piece of literature. And I do hope that Mr. Faruq does too. I pray to the Almighty that He open my heart and mind to the Truth, wherever it is, whatever it is. Regards