> Reference for hadith of human's affirmation of Allah's existence

[salman]

:

Does anyone know the reference for hadith in which Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) described the gathering of souls of sons & daughters of Adam (peace be upon him) before Allah and thus affirmed the existence of Allah?

If you know the reference, please also quote the hadith, insha'Allah. Jazak Allah khayr

[Al Habeshi]

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

Wa 'Alaykum Salam Wa Rahmatullah,

This may help;

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Br.al-Habeshi

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by salman

:

Does anyone know the reference for hadith in which Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) described the gathering of souls of sons & daughters of Adam (peace be upon him) before Allah and thus affirmed the existence of Allah?

If you know the reference, please also quote the hadith, insha'Allah. Jazak Allah khayr

shaykh salman

I know there is a narration for this, but it is really an ayaa

[And (remember) when your Lord brought forth from the children of Adam, from their loins, their seed and made them testify as to themselves (saying): "Am I not your Lord?" They said: "Yes! We testify," lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection: "Verily, we have been unaware of this."] (Al-A`raf 7:172)

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

shaykh salman

I know there is a narration for this, but it is really an ayaa

[And (remember) when your Lord brought forth from the children of Adam, from their loins, their seed and made them testify as to themselves (saying): "Am I not your Lord?" They said: "Yes! We testify," lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection: "Verily, we have been unaware of this."] (Al-A`raf 7:172)

Salam,

I quote two translations for this verse, one by Parwez and the other by Muhammed Asad.

(Traslation by Muhammed Asad)

(7:171) And [did We not say,] when We caused Mount Sinai to quake above the children of Israel asthough it were a [mere] shadow, and they thought that it would fall upon them, "Hold fast with [all your] strength unto what We have vouchsafed you, and bear in mind all that is therein, so that you might remain conscious of God"?138 (7:172) AND WHENEVER thy Sustainer brings forth their offspring from the loins of the children of Adam, He [thus] calls upon them to bear witness about themselves: "Am I not your Sustainer?" - to which they answer: "Yea, indeed, we do bear witness thereto!"139 [Of this We remind you,] lest you say on the Day of Resurrection, "Verily, we were unaware of this"; (7:173) or lest you say, "Verily, it was but our forefathers who, in times gone by, began to ascribe divinity to other beings beside God; and we were but their late offspring: wilt Thou, then, destroy us for the doings of those inventors of falsehoods?"

138 This is the end, so far as this surah is concerned, of the story of the children of Israel. In accordance with the method of the Qur'an, their story is made an object-lesson for all believers in God, of whatever community or time: and, therefore, the next passage speaks of the "children of Adam", that is, of the whole human race.

139 In the original, this passage is in the past tense ("He brought forth", "He asked them", etc.), thus stressing the continuous recurrence of the above metaphorical "question" and "answer": a continuity which is more clearly brought out in translation by the use of the present tense. According to the Qur'an, the ability to perceive the existence of the Supreme Power is inborn in human nature (fitrah); and it is this instinctive cognition - which may or may not be subsequently blurred by self-indulgence or adverse environmental influences - that makes every sane human being "bear witness about himself" before God. As so often in the Qur'an, God's "speaking" and man's "answering" is a metonym for the creative act of God and of man's existential response to it.

(Traslation by Parwez)

(7: 172-173) The history of mankind shows that despite various serious calamities which could have wiped them off the earth, the human race has continued. This is a clear evidence that Allah’s programme of creation and Rabubiyyat is in operation continuously. We have narrated this history so that human beings may not say on the Day of Reckoning, that they were unaware of it. Or they might say that they had set up peers to Allah because their ancestors had done so, and should, therefore, not be punished for the errors of their forbears.

Wassalam

[al-boriqee]

firstly, do not construe, in fact do not label the work of Parwez as a translation no more. it is his tafsir.

secondly, this revelation of his "translation" utterly proves how insane modernist deductions are of the Qur'an. They would construe simple phrases or linguistical facts like "it being in past tense" to somehow translate the verse as a showing of the actual human historical experience.

this is similar to the modernist who interpreted that when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, that their eating was in reality "copulation". Infact, I might even transfer that entire discussion here to show the absurdity of modernist conclusions and their entire thought altogether.

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

firstly, do not construe, in fact do not label the work of Parwez as a translation no more. it is his tafsir.

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

secondly, this revelation of his "translation" utterly proves how insane modernist deductions are of the Qur'an. They would construe simple phrases or linguistical facts like "it being in past tense" to somehow translate the verse as a showing of the actual human historical experience.

Salam,

Did you read Muhammed Asad translation and his comments?

In the original, this passage is in the past tense ("He brought forth", "He asked them", etc.), thus stressing the continuous recurrence of the above metaphorical "question" and "answer": a continuity which is more clearly brought out in translation by the use of the present tense.

Will you accuse Muhammed Asad also a modernist?

If you perceive this as an incident which has already taken place (i.e, Allah gathered all the human beings including me and you one time before Adam and took such a covenent), can you explain to me the meaning for the subsequent verse that follows "lest you say on the Day of resurrection, "Verily, we were unaware of this"; or lest you say, "Verily, it was but our forefathers who, in times gone by, began to ascribe divinity to other beings beside God; and we were but their late offspring: wilt Thou, then, destroy us for the doings of those inventorsof falsehoods?"

(you may read again the explanatin of Muhammed asad and parwez...I find good logic in their explanations)

I like to post here the explanation of Muhammed Asad also regarding splitting of the moon verse in the Quran which is used in past tense;

THE LAST HOUR draws near, and the moon is I split asunder!1

1 Most of the commentators see in this verse a reference to a phenomenon said to have been witnessed by several of the Prophet's contemporaries. As described in a number of reports going back to some
companions, the moon appeared one night as if split into two distinct parts. While there is no reason to doubt the subjective veracity of these reports, it is possible that what actually happened was an unusual kind of partial lunar eclipse, which produced anequally unusual optical illusion. But whatever the nature of that phenomenon, it is practically certain that the above Qur'an-verse does not refer to it but, rather, to a future event: namely, to what will happen when the Last Hour approaches. (The Qur'an frequently employs the past tense to denote the future, and particularly so in passages which speak of the coming of the Last Hour and of Resurrection Day; this use of the past tense is meant to stress the certainty of the happening to which the verb relates.) Thus, Raghib regards it as fully justifiable to interpret the phrase inshaqqa 'l-qamar ("the moon. is split asunder") as bearing on the cosmic cataclysm - the end of the world as we know it - that will occur before the coming of Resurrection Day (see art. shaqq in the Mufradat). As mentioned by Zamakhshari, this interpretation has the support of some of the earlier commentators; and it is, to my mind, particularly convincing in view of the juxtaposition, in the above Qur'an-verse, of the moon's "splitting asunder" and the approach of the Last Hour. (In this connection we must bear in mind the fact that none of the Qur'anic allusions to the "nearness" of the Last Hour and the Day of Resurrection is based on the human concept of "time".)

Can you also explain to me how authentic the following hadith taken from the link above; Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir; I highlight the portions which I am unable to comprehend. I can only consider this as an explanatino similar like the explanation given for an hadith (I quoted it in another thread) for the verse “O, you who believe! Be you not like those who annoyed Moses, But Allah proved his innocence of that which they alleged, And he was honourable In Allah's Sight."

"When Allah created Adam, He wiped Adam's back and every person that He will create from him until the Day of Resurrection fell out from his back. Allah placed a glimmering light between the eyes of each one of them. Allah showed them to Adam and Adam asked, `O Lord! Who are they' Allah said, `These are your offspring.' Adam saw a man from among them whose light he liked. He asked, `O Lord! Who is this man' Allah said, `This is a man from the latter generations of your offspring. His name is Dawud.' Adam said, `O Lord! How many years would he live' Allah said, `Sixty years.' Adam said, `O Lord! I have forfeited forty years from my life for him.' When Adam's life came to an end, the angel of death came to him (to take his soul). Adam said, `I still have forty years from my life term, don't I' He said, `Have you not given it to your son Dawud' So Adam denied that and his offspring followed suit (denying Allah's covenant), Adam forgot and his offspring forgot, Adam made a mistake and his offspring made mistakes.) At-Tirmidhi said, "This Hadith is Hasan Sahih, and it was reported from various chains of narration through Abu Hurayrah from the Prophet ''. Al-Hakim also recorded it in his Mustadrak, and said; "Sahih according to the criteria of Muslim, and they did not record it.'' These and similar Hadiths testify that Allah, the Exalted and Most Honored, brought forth Adam's offspring from his loins and separated between the inhabitants of Paradise and those of the Fire. Allah then said...."

The above hadith even accusing Adam deliberately denying something he verbally promised infront of Allah! (Allah forbid!) Is my understanding wrong? And even assuming Adam forgot that promise(!) he had given to Allah, when the Angels of death coming to him and explaining to him that he had infact given such a promise to Allah, we can not expect Adam to deny this, because Adam knows the Angels of Allah would not lie. But the fact that Adam saying to the angels `I still have forty years from my life term, don't I' means that he did not forget this promise he had given earlier!!! So here we are deliberately accusing Adam hiding and saying a lie.

I had read somewhere that it was common practice during early Islam for the people to be entertained by storytellers. These Qussas related their stories to the common people, who had a liking for amusing stories. Thus, their main object was to please the public who handsomely rewarded them. To this end, they invented many amusing anecdotes that appealed to the masses and in the process fabricated many Hadiths. I wonder if this be one among them!!

Wassalam

[optimist]

Salam,

There is also a similar verse in the Quran. The classical translators give us a meaning that the verse is referring to an incident that has taken place before Adam, where Allah gathered all the prophets and took a covenant. See the different translations.

Translation by Yousuf Ali

Behold! Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you a messenger, confirming what is with you; do ye believe in him and render him help." Allah said: "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?" They said: "We agree." He said: "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." If any turn back after this, they are perverted transgressors(3:81-82)

The translation By Muhammed Asad

AND, LO, God accepted, through the prophets, this solemn pledge [from the followers of earlier revelation]: "If, after all the revelation and the wisdom which I have vouchsafed unto you, there comes to you an apostle confirming the truth already in your possession, you must believe in him and succour him. Do you" - said He - "acknowledge and accept My bond on this condition?" They answered: "We do acknowledge it." Said He: "Then bear witness [thereto], and I shall be your witness. (3:82) And, henceforth, all who turn away [from this pledge] - it is they, they who are truly iniquitous!"


The translation By Parwez

The Guidance which is being given to you now is nothing new. It has been given to earlier peoples through their Anbia, with whom Allah had made a covenant. This covenant was that when the last Nabi who will validate the claims and promises made in their scriptures comes, they would accept him and also aid him. Allah had asked them: “Are you aware that you are accepting the covenant on these terms?”. They had answered: “We are,” thereupon Allah said: “Be witnesses to this and I will also be a witness along with you.” Allah had made it clear that those who would backslide would be those who had abandoned the right path.

Wassalam

[optimist]

Salam,

Brother Al boriqee, I will await your explanation for the subsequent verse "lest you say on the Day of resurrection, "Verily, we were unaware of this;........?" as well as for the hadith (refer to post No.6). You can take time.

Wassalam

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by optimist

Salam,

Did you read Muhammed Asad translation and his comments?

In the original, this passage is in the past tense ("He brought forth", "He asked them", etc.), thus stressing the continuous recurrence of the above metaphorical "question" and "answer": a continuity which is more clearly brought out in translation by the use of the present tense.

Will you accuse Muhammed Asad also a modernist?

yes, because Muhammad Asad was ignorant of the Islamic creed and the basics of islam which is why he had so many erroneous deductions in his explanation of the Qur'an rather than his translation of the Qur'an

Can you also explain to me how authentic the following hadith taken from the link above; Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir; I highlight the portions which I am unable to comprehend.

the first mistake you make is when you try to quarintine the actions of God within your comprehension. This is not the aqeedah of ahlu-sunnah. We, the people of the Sunnah say that God's actions or the allowance of occurences in this Universe occurs from two modes

1. through reason
2. beyond reason

that which is considered reason entails those actions which the human mind CAN comprehend. That which occurs beyond reason entails those actions or allowance of occurrences which the human mind CANNOT comprehend. For example, on the day of judgment, when our bodies have become dust and deteriorated, the only thing left of our corpse woud be the same little morsel seed that we came from. Allah will resurrect us through the real life extracttion of our selves from the same morsel seed that we were original born with, just like plants. When Muhammad's message was given to the pagan arabs about this event, their response to it is exactly what was narrated in the Qur'an

And if you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم) wonder (at these polytheists who deny your message of Islamic Monotheism and have taken besides Allah others for worship who can neither harm nor benefit), then wondrous is their saying: "When we are dust, shall we indeed then be (raised) in a new creation?" They are those who disbelieved in their Lord! They are those who will have iron chains tying their hands to their necks. They will be the dwellers of the Fire to abide therein.
( سورة الرعد , Ar-Rad, Chapter #13, Verse #5)

what happened here is that the mushriks were denying that Allah would be able to raise us back up physically as He has the first time. That is why Allah told them back

Say: "Travel in the land and see how (Allah) originated the creation, and then Allah will bring forth the creation of the Hereafter (i.e. resurrection after death). Verily, Allah is able to do all things."
( سورة العنكبوت , Al-Ankaboot, Chapter #29, Verse #20)

So here, the pagans were questioning how could there be a rebirth of our existence after we have become dust, because to them, this belief seemed "beyond their reason" Usually, with most of mankind who are oppressors, like modernist, when something is "beyond reason", it is interpreted as "illogical" and "nonsensical" which is indirectly implying that Allah revealed nonsense or that His actions are illogical just because His power can be acted beyond the bounds of human reason. This is the problem with modernit tendencies which has been somewhat adopted by philosophical methodology. This is because the basic premise of philosophy is by default inaccurate, which is that by default of human reason alone, everything can be known. What this premise actually leads to is that anything beyond the reason of man cannot be something that is credible

So this is what we need to understand, is that if Allah stated through the revelation of the prophet the fact that He took Adam and wiped his back and all of the seed of his progeny came out so that we would be made to testify that Allah is one (not that He exists as the title is erroneously titled), but that Allah IS the Lord who is One, then Allah has full power and ability to perform this feat. To say that this cannot be true because I cannot comprehend it has a few implications
1. that Divine actions cannot be miraculous. And this is one of the main problems with modernists, which is that they inherently deny miraculous occurrences simply because their minds cannot explain the phenomenon. That is why they try to interpret certain miracles like the split of the moon as some kind of scientific phenomenon that not even established modern day science has never recorded for the moon, and other such miracle reported in the Qur'an or hadeeth. And this is a fundamental belief that can entails blasphemy because the aqeedah of the people of the prophet's sunnah and the jama'ah agree in the affirmation of such miracles.
2. It implies an arrogance towards Allah Almighty that in order for you to accept something from Him, His actions have to be bound within your finite and pathetic reasoning.

Now, I'm not saying that these two attributes are intentional outcomes that modernist intend, rather their structural mode of thinking by default entails with these implication. In other words, these attribute come with the territory of modernist thought without even intending these attributes directly just as firm and unwaivering belief in Allah and the Messenger and the last day ENTAILS the attribute of "we hear and we obey" without them even intending to seek out this attribute, rather it just goes hand in hand with their structural methodology.

I can only consider this as an explanatino similar like the explanation given for an hadith (I quoted it in another thread) for the verse “O, you who believe! Be you not like those who annoyed Moses, But Allah proved his innocence of that which they alleged, And he was honourable In Allah's Sight."

"When Allah created Adam, He wiped Adam's back and every person that He will create from him until the Day of Resurrection fell out from his back. Allah placed a glimmering light between the eyes of each one of them. Allah showed them to Adam and Adam asked, `O Lord! Who are they' Allah said, `These are your offspring.' Adam saw a man from among them whose light he liked. He asked, `O Lord! Who is this man' Allah said, `This is a man from the latter generations of your offspring. His name is Dawud.' Adam said, `O Lord! How many years would he live' Allah said, `Sixty years.' Adam said, `O Lord! I have forfeited forty years from my life for him.' When Adam's life came to an end, the angel of death came to him (to take his soul). Adam said, `I still have forty years from my life term, don't I' He said, `Have you not given it to your son Dawud' So Adam denied that and his offspring followed suit (denying Allah's covenant), Adam forgot and his offspring forgot, Adam made a mistake and his offspring made mistakes.) At-Tirmidhi said, "This Hadith is Hasan Sahih, and it was reported from various chains of narration through Abu Hurayrah from the Prophet ''. Al-Hakim also recorded it in his Mustadrak, and said; "Sahih according to the criteria of Muslim, and they did not record it.'' These and similar Hadiths testify that Allah, the Exalted and Most Honored, brought forth Adam's offspring from his loins and separated between the inhabitants of Paradise and those of the Fire. Allah then said...."

firstly, the text that is in blue is not or was not narrated in explanation of the text in red, rather the text in blue was actually a detailed breakdown of the original ayaah in question that I initiall gave to Salman which was


[And (remember) when your Lord brought forth from the children of Adam, from their loins, their seed and made them testify as to themselves (saying): "Am I not your Lord?" They said: "Yes! We testify," lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection: "Verily, we have been unaware of this."] (Al-A`raf 7:172)

So in reality, this entire naration in blue, even if it was not authentic, STILL makes 7 hundred thousand times more sense than Parwez or Asad's commentary on the ayaah, because their commentative deductions, like with most modernists who find narrations awkward for their finite minds, are geared towards the nullification of events or situations in order to conform with human reasoning, when we already know that the actions of God as well fall beyond and outside the realm of human reasoning. So interpretations like Parwez and Asad, and others, are based on some hermeneutical interpretative gymnastics that makes no sense to arabi syntax, ilmu-bayaan, m'aani, nahw, or anything science of arabic. Its all a bunch of interpretative gymnastics to try to bend the meanings according to modernist logic, which is in reality no logic at all

The above hadith even accusing Adam deliberately denying something he verbally promised infront of Allah! (Allah forbid!)

His denial is the same is our denial now. If I ask Bob on the street if he remember the covenant he took, what are the odds that he would deny the event. I'd say about infinity to 0. I can ask likeise jane, mary, henry, harry, or joe and everyone else in my community as well as the state, as well as the country, as well as the world of the same question, and im sure that the response will be a flat out denial of the event. So What Im saying is that our common denial of the event is exactly as Adam's was to that situation. Now, people will call it as an existential amnesia where we would only deny something if our brains have not remembered it, which may be true, however, this actual event that took place when Allah brought out all of the progeny of Adam is actually connected to another concept in Islam which is called the "Fitrah" which is the human fitrah.

The human fitrah, is the innate knowledge and acceptance of the heart that leads to Allah's existence. This fitrah was somewhat highlighted in the sotry of Prophet Ibraheem when he first began his quest for the acknowledgement of the Lord of the Universe. The drive that brought him to this path is what the shariah has defined as the human fitrah. The scholars have extrapolated that this very hadeeth, the on you can;t understand, is also the basis for this human fitrah. In other words, the human fitrah, the innate nature of man to recognize the basic truth of God's existence, its actual origin lies in this event narrated in this hadeeth.

And because this hadeeth is comprehensive, it also has links to other aspects of the Islamic belief like al-Qadr and other aspects, but its irrelevant to bring those up in this discussion here.

Is my understanding wrong?

no offense, but yep

And even assuming Adam forgot that promise(!) he had given to Allah, when the Angels of death coming to him and explaining to him that he had infact given such a promise to Allah, we can not expect Adam to deny this, because Adam knows the Angels of Allah would not lie.

who informed you that Adam knew that the angels do not lie. The belief that the angels do not lie is a belief that is not substantiated (from what I know) in any source text, rather it is a scholastic deduction of the sources. Likewise, since Adam knew the role of angels, he could have assumed that the angels sent to him were merely testing him for something, we don't know. So it is not a simple task to brush aside.

But the fact that Adam saying to the angels `I still have forty years from my life term, don't I' means that he did not forget this promise he had given earlier!!! So here we are deliberately accusing Adam hiding and saying a lie.

Thats a good point. I appreciate your pointing this out. Im actually defending the concept or the event, and not necessarily this actual chain. it could be that the narrator got that part wrong or that it has lost some credibility do to the narrator having lost his precision in memory. Whatever the case is, this is not the only route of this actual report. Here is another stronger report narrated by Ahmad whcih signifies to us that this event is not some odd idea that should be abrogated from Islamic thought, rather it has stunning reports throughout. Here is a shorter yet similar narration

It was reported that Ibn Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: the Messenger of Allaah (pbuh) said: ‘Allaah took the covenant from the …[offspring] of Adam in Na’maan, i.e., Arafaah. He brought forth … all his offspring and spread them before Him, then He addressed them, and said: ‘Am I not your Lord? They said, ‘Yes, we testify,’ lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection: ‘Verily, we have been unaware of this.’ Or lest you should say: ‘It was only our fathers aforetime who took others as partners in worship along with Allaah, and we were (merely their) descendents after them; will You then destroy us because of the deeds of men who practised Al-Baatil ?‘ [al-A'raaf 7:172-173].’ [Narrated by Ahmad]

So it could be that the entire situation is authentic except for the adam part, or it could be that the Adam part may have been why Tirmidhi graded it as hasan saheeh rather than saheeh. However, what I would try to do is try to find an explanation of this actual narration to see that maybe our idea of the wording could be wrong.

I had read somewhere that it was common practice during early Islam for the people to be entertained by storytellers. These Qussas related their stories to the common people, who had a liking for amusing stories. Thus, their main object was to please the public who handsomely rewarded them. To this end, they invented many amusing anecdotes that appealed to the masses and in the process fabricated many Hadiths. I wonder if this be one among them!!

that is a genuine historical account that you have pointed out. There is just one problem. The traditionists, being aware of "shi'ir" or poetic narrations by default condemned sotry tellers from the realm of hadeeth knowledge. In fact, the traditionalist were able to spot a story from a mile away. This is why one of the main sciences of hadeeth specialist is the knowledge of the narrators. in other words, they knew who was the narrator, what he did, what he was known for, who did he study from, who did he sit with, etc ,etc,etc. It was like an ancient CIA investigation. This was how meticulous the Hadeeth specialist were on the subject. So citing this historical account alone does not give validity to the concept that because this is a historical fact, that it brought out many fabricated hadeeth.

Secondly, what further repudiates this is that Ibn Abbass narrated in a narration (not a hadeeth of the prophet) that,the knowledge of the Qur'an is extracted from three sources. Actually, what modernist try to do like Javed Ghamidi and his likes, is to quarantine the meaning of the Qur'an to classical arabic literature, when in actually that is merely 1/3 of the understanding of the Qur'an. So these modernist like to narrate the following

Quite similarly, ‘Umar (rta) is reported to have said:

عليكم بديوانكم لا تضلوا قالوا وما ديواننا قال شعر الجاهلية فإن قيه تفسير كتابكم ومعاني كلامكم
If you protect your poetry, you will not go astray. People asked: “What are our poetic collections?” He said: “The poetry of the jahiliyyah period because it contains the tafsir of your Book and also the meaning of your language.”

Ibn ‘Abbas (rta), a celebrated Companion of the Prophet (sws), said:

إذا سألتم عن غريب القرآن فالتمسوه في الشعر فإن الشعر ديوان العرب
If you want to understand the meaning of a Qur’anic word little known to you, search for it in poetry because it is this poetry which is the anthology of the Arabs.

however, in another narration from Ibn Abbass, he stated that the Qur'an's primary sources for understanding are three

and then he names
1.through the sayings of the Messenger
2. through arabic language
3. poetry of jaahiliyyah (in order to learn the styles of rhetoric)

adding to that, as-Suyoote,Ibn Taymiyyah and the most authoritative of Qur'anic exegetes have commented that the usage of linguistics and poetic rhetoric of the arabs are secondary to Allah and His Messenger (shar'i). WHY? This is because the Qur'an was revealed to explain the share'ah of Islam and not to explain arabic. some examples could be like the term salaah. If we were to restrict ourselves to arabic language alone, then our salaah would morph into the salah of Quraniyoon hadeeth rejectors, which would be merely a supplicative incantation rather than the unanimous motional salaah perform by the Muslim nation.

Likewise, for example, Allah instructed us to cut the hand of the theif
"sariqu yad" both the male of them and the female of them.

In the classical arabic literature, "yad" as a reality meant the english equivalent of the entire human arm. In other words the arabic "yad" literally means "the length from the very tip of the fingers all the way to the shoulder blade". That in arabic is what is known as "yad". So when Allah revealed the ayaah of cutting the yad of the theif, according to modernist ideals, we are to cut off the entire arm. But of course modernist deny the entire judgment of Allah through other routes of satanic deductions, however, if they did not deny this ruling from Allah and yet deny the sunnah,then because of their principle of understanding the Qur'an ONLY through the route of classical jaahili poetry, then that means that the entire arm is cut. That is essentially wrong from the shar'i point of view because when the messenger was approached with this ayaah, he specifically outlined what was to be cut off and he literally wrapped his hand around the wrist indicating that it is the english equivalent of the hand, and not the entire arm that the arabic gives to it.

This some of the many reasons why the language of the arabs in terms of Qur'anic exegesis is secondary to the shar'i explanations given by Allah, His Messenger, or the companions, adding to the fact that the messenger and the companions were the most enlightened concerning jaahili poetry and grammer more so than anyone who came after them.

So while arabic IS a source route to understand the Qur'an, it is not the ONLY route by which understanding takes place.

Now, even with regard to arabic itself, the ambassadors of Iblees like Parwez, Ghamidi, or whoever else are ignorant of the arabic much less, the shariah. Here is a pointer for you that you need to understand of the Qur'an and the people who speak on it

Imam an-Nasafi 'rahmatullahi ta'ala alaih' writes in his Aqaid,
"Meanings are to be given according to the Arabic teachings. It will be ilhad [To go out of the religion by misunderstanding one or more parts of the Qur'an. He who does so is called a Mulhid.] and disbelief to give other meanings as the aberrant Ismailis (one of the groups of Shiites) did."

Those who make corrupt interpretations according to their own minds and opinions are of five types:
1 - The ignorant who do not know the prerequisites that are necessary for interpretation. [i.e. modernist]

2 - Those who interpret ayats that are mutashabih [see above].
3 - Those in the aberrant groups and religion reformers who interpret according to their corrupt thoughts and wishes. [i.e. modernist]

4 - Those who interpret without understanding well enough through proofs and documents. [i.e. modernist]

5 - Those who interpret incorrectly by following their nafs and the devil. [i.e. modernist]



so in these five, four of them outline modernist tendencies in their approach to the Qur'an which is why I advised you not to resort to their works at all

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

So here, the pagans were questioning how could there be a rebirth of our existence after we have become dust, because to them, this belief seemed "beyond their reason" Usually, with most of mankind who are oppressors, like modernist, when something is "beyond reason", it is interpreted as "illogical" and "nonsensical" which is indirectly implying that Allah revealed nonsense or that His actions are illogical just because His power can be acted beyond the bounds of human reason.

Salam,

You are brining up issues which are not relevant. I do not have a case that it is impossible for Allah to gather all the human beings on any day. If Allah wants to gather all the human being Allah can do it today starting from Adam including all those who will be born till the end of the day. It is nothing to do with "beyond reason", "illogical" and "nonsensical". It is simply reasonable and logical. The issue is that this verse does not refer to such an incident. You are highlighting some other issues and going for a long lecture. If any ‘modernist’ says everything in Islam should be based on logic and there is no element of belief in Islam, he is not a modernist he is a lunatic with no basic information about Islam. You have still not explained the significance of the verse that follows “lest you say on the Day of Resurrection, "Verily, we were unaware of this"; or lest you say, "Verily, it was but our forefathers who, in times gone by, began to ascribe divinity to other beings beside God; and we were but their late offspring: wilt Thou, then, destroy us for the doings of those inventorsof falsehoods”.

Here if Allah is referring to a verbal promise given by me to Allah (while I was with Adam), since I do not remember that promise, it does not make any sense for the verse “lest I say on the day of Judgment that I am unaware of this”. I have to remember that promise if this verse has any meaning. And also a non believer could not be accused of violating the promise on the day of judgment if he does not remember the promise at all. Therefore the literal translation is not the correct translation for this verse. It is where the translation of Muhammed Asad and Parwez becomes relevant. I still do believe the version given by Muhammed Asad and Parwez likely to be the truth.

firstly, the text that is in blue is not or was not narrated in explanation of the text in red, rather the text in blue was actually a detailed breakdown of the original ayaah in question that I initiall gave to Salman

I was not saying the text in red in relation to text in blue. I had earlier posted (in another thread) the explanation given in a hadith for the text in red. Sorry for creating misunderstanding.

So in reality, this entire naration in blue, even if it was not authentic, STILL makes 7 hundred thousand times more sense than Parwez or Asad's commentary on the ayah

I never expected from you a comment like, ‘it could be that the narrator got that part wrong or that it has lost some credibility do to the narrator having lost his precision in memory’. By this statement, except the first sentence in blue, you yourself doubt the authenticity of rest of the story. You have been arguing a hadith as equal to Wahi from Allah, now you start to admit human errors and additions. Based on this what is the credibility of Ahad hadiths, which are narrated from one source? How can you say for sure that the narrator in a Ahad hadith heard the prophet correctly?

His denial is the same is our denial now. If I ask Bob on the street if he remember the covenant he took, what are the odds that he would deny the event. I'd say about infinity to 0.

If Adam had NOT asked in the beginning `I still have forty years from my life term, don't I’, then there would have been logic in your statement

who informed you that Adam knew that the angels do not lie. The belief that the angels do not lie is a belief that is not substantiated (from what I know) in any source text, rather it is a scholastic deduction of the sources. Likewise, since Adam knew the role of angels, he could have assumed that the angels sent to him were merely testing him for something, we don't know. So it is not a simple task to brush aside.

You are contradicting when you say Adam may have thought Angels were merely testing. Did you forget that according this hadith it was Adam who first said to angels `I still have forty years from my life term, don't I’. It means Adam very well aware of the whole incident. There is no need to assume anything when the fact itself is already known to Adam.

Wassalam.