Title: Third Comment on 'Where is Allah?' Question/Comments: Assalaamu &Alaykum, Time's up, brother Learner! You have turned a few points that I raised into a 6 page response (believe me, I printed it). I was trying to take advantage of this holiday period by spending some quality time with my friends at sri. It is time to go back to work, college, and other things in life. I'll respond to you one last time, but I can't afford the time to keep doing it for a while. As brief as I tried to be, it usually takes six pages to respond to 6 pages. So, readers, please bear with me., as this is a long reply. My dear brother, The Learner, despite your claim of being open to learning, and the psudunymn you slected for yourself, it is clear that you are offended at criticism, and your sensitivity to it is shining through your words. The Learner wrote: I would appreciate if Mr. Faruq Please call me Omar. I like that name. would precisely point out such of my answers which are not supported by the Arabic language or the Qur'an. Omniscience was only a part of the true meaning of "being closer to our jugular veins. I added Omnipresence and Omnipotence, both of which are true, and both of which strengthen your argument. Redefining the true meaning of `arsh, not merely the dictionary meaning, or the English equivalence of the word, was a way to strengthen your argument as well. You're welcome. Motive of a person has to do purely with his innermost feelings and desires. No one asked you to probe into anyone's most inner feelings and desires. All you need to do is to pen your eyes to the obvious. We have a complete history at hand that clearly exposes missionary intents on this newsgroup, and throughout the entire Internet. I realize you are new here, but you can read Jochen, and sura-like-it web sites, or dig into dejanews for their articles, and those of Chtistoph Heger, and others. The motive will not only become apparent. It will become crystal clear. 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. You miss the whole point. I'm not talking about mere criticism. I'm talking about vicious attacks, and charges of being a fake book made up by Muhammad, who "was not even sure of Jesus' mother's name." Have you not been reading the newsgroup for the last coupe of weeks? Do you always shut out the whole world and focus only on your own words and the criticism of those words? You seem very selective in reading. I like a kind-hearted person, but one should not be totally naive. 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. I only wanted to tell you that you do not need to reinvent the wheel. Others have already done what you are attempting to do for years. This only increased the missionaries aversion. It certainly did not convince any of them that the Qur'an is from God. I suggest you visit a few web sites besides yours. Ask Brother Saifullah to point you to various sites, including his, where all Christian "criticism" of the Qur'an, that we have heard of, has already been addressed. I'll be linking to brother Saifullah's pag(es) with his permission. This way I do not have to reinvent the wheel. What you do is your business. These are not new issues. They just keep leaving the bottom of the dark murky lake and coming up to the surface. You can save yourself some time, and become more productive in writing Qur'anic views. The Qur'an is limitless. The issues do not stop at answering Christianity. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of myths in the minds of muslims regarding the Qur'an and Islam that need to be addressed. I consider that a better priority. But it is not for me to decide "who" is destined to stray. Once more you show your selective thinking. I did not single Jochen or anyone else in particular as being destined to stray. I have no knowledge of that. What I do is to observe the behavior patterns around. One must get his head out of the clouds once in a while. Do you think the prophet, p, was walking around thinking "Oh, there's still hope for Abu Lahab"? One does not need to hypnotize these people and analyze where they are heading in life. The missionaries are very transparent that even the occasional lurkers know them well on this newsgroup. 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. I specifically said "From what I read from The Learner's articles thus far, that does not seem to be the case." Please do not take every word in my reply as a criticism of what you said. Many of what I have written was either in support or to strengthen your points. Once more, you're welcome. 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 Actually, there are 9 occurrences of when referring to God: 2:29, 7:54, 10:3, 13:2, 20:5, 25:59, 32:4, 41:11, 57:4 none of these instances does the question arise that A) Who was in charge before Allah; or B) Was anyone in charge 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, "None! No one!" Please listen to yourself. You are making assumptions here, and erroneous ones at that. Please do not assume what people will or will not think. The words we choose can make a world of a difference. Your point of view is not the international standard, and neither is mine. But put them together and they can certainly be on our way towards standardizing. 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. Did Allah only create the heavens and earth? Did He not create that which we have no knowledge of (16:8)? Let's take a human example for the sake of clarity. Thomas Edison created (invented) the light bulb. Did he assume authority over it? As, obviously, the heavens and the earth did not exist before that. Neither did the light bulb. Moreover, I would surely be interested in finding out what, in the opinion of Mr. Faruq, is the correct interpretation of the referred phrase. And that you will, insha'Allah before this attempt to shrink your post is over. Regarding God's assuming of the authority and delegation: As shall be quite clear, I did not say that this phrase has negated God's dependence You do not need to. Delegation implies dependence, and it also implies relinquishing of / or part of authority. God does not do that. God does what He wills. He is . He assigns duties while the performance of such duties are under his full control and watchful eye. Please extol your Lord as He should be. Otherwise you will be one of those who . Moreover, even if "delegation" is considered synonymous with "dependence" by Mr. Faruq, It is not synonymous. It is implicating. 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? I did not say that it can be expressed in only one way. I gave you the most precise phrase that I could think of. I said, regarding the word : 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". Not everything in the Qur'an conforms to common Arabic practices, new or old. The Qur'an is deeper in meaning than any dictionary. 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 the word when looked up in a dictionary would yield when we know the Qur'an is not referring to illiteracy when it mentions the word or . And the word when looked up in the dictionary would yield when we know that it is simply "cover" and the head has nothing to do with it. You cannot simply take one of a dictionary's multiple choices and say "this is it." You need to look further into the meaning, context, and implications. is located at the highest point. When a king sits on a throne, no one's head is above him. is to "rise/ascend." is "to rise/ascend to the highest point" above anything. Further God tells us that He is "surrounding," and that on that Day, the earth shall be in His closed fist, and the heavens will be folded in His right. is to rise above and surround all His creation no matter how far it spans. His entire creation, that which we know as well as that which we do not know is His . Although is symbolic of power, God uses specific words For power, control, authority, etc. such as , , , etc. And exactly like "throne" in the English language, We are not talking about English. The latter falls short of expressing many Qur'anic words. 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 Not error, but insufficiency, or weakness; the term you seem to be sensitive to. I added to your meaning to make it complete, full, and strong. You gave a partial meaning. Knowing something does not always imply the ability to see it and control it. I really do not think Mr. Faruq has any sound basis of saying what he has said. Fine. No worries, mate! 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. More power to you. I hope I can get enlightened by your complete analysis. Part of the sermon deleted. 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? For one thing, I say . For another, I advocate the Qur'an as the sole source of guidance and salvation. For a third, I never ridicule the Qur'an and call it a fake book made up by a human who was not even proficient at what he did. Do I need to go on? But I do not demand your respect and admiration. I have no need for these. God suffices for me, and always will. Please tell me, how would you feel if I started calling you a dishonest debator and a person who is destined to stray, if you are not convinced of my writings? You are jumping with both feet into muddy grounds. I explained to you that history is our witness of someone's motives and intentions. It is not our keen vision into their hearts. You may call me anything. If the shoe fits then I'll wear it. If not. then you owe me a refund. 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? I have a feeling you're going to tell me. Because, criticisms on my articles criticize my abilities and understanding, but such comments challenge my integrity and my honesty, and these things I hold much more dear to myself than my intellectual abilities. And off you go into the sunset of fantasy. Please focus, and don't get carried away with your touching emotions. This is not the proper place or time, at least not as far as I am concerned. I don't think you will like the next statement then: you have a lot more learning to do before you can assign yourself an authority on interpreting the Qur'an. From what I have seen, you lack plenty of knowledge. Interpret that anyway you feel fit. I would sincerely request you Mr. Faruq that you should "do unto others as you would like them to do unto you". Oh, now it is time for Gospel quotations. I do not make up lies and attribute them to others. When I make a decision regarding something or someone I try my best to make it an informed one. What we say or do reflect what we think. Otherwise it is gibberish, and not worth listening to. Maybe a little less self-piousness and a good look at the world around you can benefit you a great deal. The rest of the sermon on the mount was deleted. 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 quoted you a dozen or so verses from the Qur'an. What more do you need? I have no bag of tricks to force-feed ideas into the minds of those who dismiss the proof. 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. My dear brother, you sure like to argue, and you seem to have the time and energy to do it. 22: 47 reads as: "Surely a day in the sight of your Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning" 22:47 does not read as the above. That is your interpretation of 22:47. does not translate into "in the sight of God." Had that been the case we would have a great discrepancy in time. God is counting in days, while we are counting in thousands, or fifty thousands of years. Once more, if taken literally, which is it anyway, 1000 or 50000? Neither! or is better expressed or . God is not bound by time or space as we are. We are given analogies of that which we understand using our limited mental capabilities. No one is his right mind would literally think that it takes angels 50,000 years to ascend to God, wherever He is to report and receive instruction, while in the meantime that is equal to one day in God's standard. We'd be dead long before our prayers or blasphemies, as the case maybe, are heard. DO YOU SEE WHAT I"M SAYING HERE? If not then perhaps when I have the time I can give it another shot. That is it for now. Ditto for the rest of the verses. These are my reservations on Mr. Faruq's comments. Reservations or observations? Never mind. That can lead to another lengthy post :) Salaam, Answer: I thank Mr. Omar for his reply... If anyone from the group feels that I should clarify any point any further, I shall be more than willing to present my views on that point. Best regards