All Comments (351)

Very beautiful duaa, may allah grant you more knowledge, and I will repeat this supplications, in this way
O God! I ask you to grant me your love, and the love of those who love you,and those are ( Imam zaid shaker ,shake Hamza , austaz Rudus ) and the love of those actions that draw me near to your love.”
It is great to be educated in Islam with those great scholars. May god give you more from his elam.

"but in Islam, we know that we only can "accept" the dogma and it's forbidden to think"

That is not true. According to Islamic teaching the human intellect is limited in its capacity to understand things beyond its domain, and it should not be over-emphasised over other ways of knowing.

great post!!!

Thank you. Beautifully put. It seems that the prayer is core to the Islamic belief and one which puts them close to God without trangressing the devine boundries. A great insight.

Hi, a very nice discussion. I've read sometimes, but I must agree with Joseph that both Victoria and Rafael didn't give enough "theological" background on Islam. But in Islam, we know that we only can "accept" the dogma and it's forbidden to think. Islam means "Submission" anyhow, and that's not without reason.

im amazed its still going here-
dont worry raphael- this is an old and futile accusation-

it is based on the hadeeth of hisham ibn-urwah who was 71 when he went to iran, and it is considered that his memory was no longer reliable at that time-
also, for obvious reasons(the great antipathy shi'ites have towards aisha) any hadeeth of iranian source is not accepted(especially in regards to aisha)

sorry to do this, but you may find it useful

Understanding Islam -

What was Ayesha's (ra) Age at the Time of Her Marriage to the Prophet (pbuh)?

Question:

What was Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage?

It is normally believed that she was nine years old at the time of her marriage with Mohammad (sws) was consummated. I do think it was according to the traditions of the Arab culture, as otherwise people would have objected to this marriage. But unfortunately, the modern day man is not satisfied with an answer as simple as that.

Answer:

To begin with[1], I think it is the responsibility of all those who believe that marrying a girl as young as nine years old was an accepted norm of the Arab culture, to provide at least a few examples to substantiate their point of view. I have not yet been able to find a single reliable instance in the books of Arab history where a girl as young as nine years old was given away in marriage. Unless such examples are given, we do not have any reasonable grounds to believe that it really was an accepted norm.

In my opinion, the age of Ayesha (ra) has been grossly misreported in the narratives of the incident. Not only that, I think that the narratives reporting this event are not only highly unreliable but also that on the basis of other historical data, the event reported, is quite an unlikely happening. Let us look at the issue from an objective stand point. My reservations in accepting the narratives, on the basis of which, Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is held to be nine years are:

*

Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.
*

It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy-one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have shifted after living in Medinah for seventy-one years.
*

Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham, which were reported through people of Iraq (Vol. 11, pg. 48 - 51).
*

Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly (Vol. 4, pg. 301 - 302).
*

According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. However, according to another narrative in Bukhari (Kitaab al-Tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an , was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th Surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred Surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not even only an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why should we not accept this narrative to be more accurate.
*

According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicates that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battlefields to help them, not to be a burden upon them.
*

According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb as well as Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah that Asma (ra) died in the 73rd year after hijrah[2] when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in the 73rd year after hijrah, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra) - if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH - was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.
*

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah - the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH - the time she most likely got married.
*

According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not even have been born during the first year of Islam.
*

Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr (ra) planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am - with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged at that time - and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam. Subsequently, his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.
*

According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine-year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".
*

According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.

These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage.

In my opinion, neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Ayesha (ra) at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.

1st May 1998

[1] The answer to this question is primarily based on the research by Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi (urdu) as presented in his booklet, "Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat", Anjuman Uswa e hasanah, Karachi, Pakistan

[2] That is, the migration of the Prophet (pbuh)

To Rafael;
It's is nice to see that someone truly has a relationship with God. There should be more people like you, respectful and willing to make an effort to understand that we all have differences and that tearing each other down without having learned for ourselves what people are really about, will do more harm than good.
shalom, salaam, peace,etc.. to you

To Anonymous:

Firstly, I do not agree that that all religions are cons, although I do believe that there are cons within every religion.

Let me first say that we must be mindful not to exaggerate in saying that "sex with 9 year olds is still preached by many Islamic leaders". Do you have a list of all Islamic leaders and do you check off the ones you heard personally endorsing such a view or read their published writings? Ayatollah Khomeini is just one man and a Shi'ite at that, representing a minority view. Additionally, the Shi'ites are the ones who still uphold the practice of temporary marriages, with some exceptions, not the majority Sunnis. Also, in my studies of (Sunni) Islam, I have found that they usually provide evidence from the Qur'an and the Sun-nat to support a fatwa (legal opinion). I would assume that an Ayatollah would do the same, but I am not as familiar with Shi'ite approach to Fiqh (Islamic Legal Theory).

I also think you missed my point, even on a secular level, sexual intercourse with a minor is legal in the United States and throughout Europe...as young as 12 in one European country. I simply think it is a fallacious argument for any person to try and criticize Muhammad's marriage to `Aa'isha (even if she was 9). I do not think it right or correct to criticize and judge a cultural practice that took place over 1400 years ago and was considered, at that time, the norm throughout the known world. I also find it interesting that none of Muhammad's contemporary enemies ever criticized him for this marriage.

Although I try my best not to commit ethnocentrism, I admit that if the Ayatollah did give such a Fatwa, it is bothering to me that he does not see molestation/intercourse of a child younger than nine as a crime. Having said that, I do like the concept of a man being permanently financially responsible for the one he rapes. Sounds like a good and fitting punishment/compensation for us to implement in our justice sysem for rape victims.

Lastly, if you are familiar with my previous posts throughout Mr. Shakir's blogs, you will know that I do not use a broad brush to paint all Muslims the same hue. I realize that their religion, just like Christianity, has its diversity as it pertains to the interpretation and understanding of their religios texts, i.e. the Qur'an and the Hadeeths.

Rafeal,

I agree with you that all religions should be forsaken considering that they are all a con. The problem, however, is that sex with 9 year olds is still preached by many Islamic leaders, and this causes children to be abused. Doesn't this bother you?

Ayatollah Khomeini's Religious Teachings on Marriage, Divorce and Relationships
From Ayatollah Khomeini's book "Tahrir-ol-Masael":
www.homa.org/Details.asp?View=Detail&ContentID=2137352748&TOCID=2083225413
"A woman may legally belong to a man in one of two ways; by continuing marriage or temporary marriage. In the former, the duration of the marriage need not be specified; in the latter, it must be stipulated, for example, that it is for a period of an hour, a day, a month, a year, or more. A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual act such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed […] A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life."

Show me where this is happening in any other faith.

To ANONYMOUS:

I suppose that all religions should be forsaken considering that most (if not all) ancient cultures considered that a girl became a woman at the moment she started her monthly cycle and was ready for copulation. Although the individual States in the US have set the marriage age from 16-19, the age of sexual consent is even lower in some and let us not even mention the age of consent in most European countries, which is 14 (Malta is 12; Spain is 13).

Age of consent in Deleware, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington is 16.

In New Jersey, the age of consent is 16, however there is also a clause that allows for the minor to be 13 years old so long as the partner is less than 3 years older.

In Kentucky, the age of consent is 16, however there is also a clause that allows for the minor to be 14 so long as the partner is less than 5 years older.

In North Carolina, the age is 16, however there is also a clause that allows for the minor to be 13-15 years old so long as the partner is less than 6 years older.

In Missouri, those who are under 21 can engage in sexual intercourse with those 14 and older.

Although the age of consent in Florida is 18, the law does have a "close in age" exception clause that allows an adult under the age of 24 to engage in legal sexual activity with a minor no younger than the age of 16.

Having said that, I suppose Christians should be raising hell with God since Mary was impregnated at around the age of 13? I guess we should forsake Christianity as well. Oh, and let us not forget about our country's Christian forefathers who regularly engaged in sexual intercourse and marriage with girls (and female slaves) who were just entering into puberty.

As a student of Anthropology, I have learned that there is a serious danger of being ethnocentric as it related to looking at and trying to evaluate another's culture and society in relation to one's own, especially as it relates to civilizations that are more ancient than one's own.

So, basically, the continued argument of using Muhammad's marriage to `Aaisha is simply ridiculous and better arguments need to be looked to, especially when one considers that among Muslim scholars, not all are in agreement that she was nine at the time of marriage to Muhammad, but in fact was closer to the age of 14, some even saying 17 based on the evidence of certain Hadeeth.

I think it best that people do a little more research when criticizing other religions to ensure that they are not simply repeating old prejudices or that the same "issues" do not exist in their own...it would be like the pot calling the kettle black.

To: "WHILE CHRISTIANS OF THE WORLD LOOK ON"

In regards to what happened in Sbernicha, the same will probably happen to Muslims in Europe within the next 30 years, and let me explain why.

The ideology of Islam requires Muslims to infiltrate the lands of the unbelievers and procreate at a higher rate than the indigenous population until the faith of Islam becomes dominant in that territory. This is how Muslims are required by their faith to convert Dar al-Harb territory into Dar al-Islam territory. This is actively preached in Mosques across the world and on Islamic television stations (if you require evidence, I can provide it).

Muslims put this ideology into action in the Balkans. Muslims moved into non-Muslim areas and the percentage of Muslims in those territories grew and grew, and as this happened the tensions grew and grew. The non-Muslim population eventually rose up against it. The end result was genocide as the non-Muslims tried to regain their own way of life. This doesn't justify the genocide, but it does explain it.

The same will happen in Europe. Mark these words. The author does not wish for this to happen, but it is the obvious consequence of Islamic ideology. It is already happening. The numbers of Muslims living in Europe are increasing very rapidly, mostly through higher birth-rate amongst Muslims. This also accounts for why Muslims are able to claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. It primarily increases through birth-rate, in accordance with the ideology.

Sir Winston Churchill identified Islam as an ideology, and considered it more dangerous than Nazism, because he understood the above, unlike today’s PC politicians.

The only way to keep the peace between Islam and the non-Muslim world is to keep the two separate. Whenever the two are mixed the end result is always the same. History will prove these words to be true. Mark these words.

Before responding to this post and appeasing Islam any further, remember just two words: Winston Churchill, and do not be tempted to compare your knowledge or wisdom to his on this matter. Churchill lived and worked in Islamic countries before becoming prime minister, and was awarded the Nobel prize for his literature and historical scholarship. He also identified two major threats to your way of life which were not recognised by other politicians at the time - Nazism and communism.

TO ALL MUSLIMS,

Please consider the following, assuming that it doesn't refer to Islam:

Imagine that a man moves in next door to you. He begins setting up a new cult. He claims that the creator of the universe speaks to him. He says that anyone who doesn't believe him will spend eternity in hell when they die. He preaches that anyone who leaves his cult must be murdered by the remaining cult members, and this starts to happen. He preaches that anyone who speaks out against him must be assassinated by his cult members, and this starts to happen. His followers become too afraid to ever question their faith publicly and so it becomes a taboo to doubt the faith or to question his teachings.

He preaches that his followers will not go to hell when they die, no matter what crimes they commit, because a non-believer will be made to pay for their sins.

Unlike most men, he finds little 9 year old girls sexually attractive and is able to get an erection with a 9 year old child in order to consummate his 'marriage' to that child (it should be noted that most men are incapable of this). He encourages his male followers to emulate him. He teaches his followers to rape female captives of war in order to shame and humiliate the unbelievers. He has women stoned to death for simply having sex outside of marriage. He manipulates his followers into attacking local towns and villages by teaching that they are oppressed and need to be 'freed' by his cult. He teaches that his cult is oppressed and must attack in order to defend. He teaches that his followers can share in the booty of war. He keeps slaves, trades in slaves and allows his followers to enslave unbelieving women and girls. He teaches that the body of a slave girl belongs to the slave owner. He teaches that slave owners may have sex with female slaves without their consent.

The question for all Muslims is this: Would you support such a man, join his cult and help it grow? Would you consider it right to kill people who left his cult? Would you consider it right to engage little 9 year old girls in sexual relationships? Would you not see through his cult psychology and manipulation skills? Would you believe that god spoke to him or would you recognise him as a psychological manipulator? Would you be taken in by such a conman?

What is your answer?

Brothers and Sisters,

Shaykh Zaid Shakir's article is excellent.

On the excellence of prayers, below mentioned is what Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon him) said;

Abu Hurayra said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'What do you think would happen if there was a riiver by someone's door in which he washed five times every day? Do you think that any dirt would remain on him?' They said, 'Not a scrap of dirt would remain on him.' He said, 'That is a metaphor of the five prayers by which Allah wipes out wrong actions.'" [Agreed upon]

Jabir reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The metaphor of the five prayers is that of an sizeable flowing river at the door of one of you in which he washes five times every day." [Muslim]

Thanks and we'll all go in peace.

Jazak Allahu Khairan
Asif

We should look at the more recent genocide of Muslims in Bosnia, Lebanon and the on going genocide of course in Palestine:

Eight thousand Bosnian Muslim boys and men were handcuffed, blindfolded and led to by Serbs Orthodox Christians and with full knowledge of the UN Dutch military unit (Protestant and Catholic Christians) to a forest in Bosnia just outside Sbernicha: they were murdered in cold blood, en masse genocide-summary executions; thou those innocent victims were European Slavs and citizens of ex-Yugoslavia, their only crime was that they were Muslim. This did not happen 2000 years ago, it happened in 1991.The total number of Muslims murdered by the Christian Serbs in that war exceeded 250,000 including mass rape of children and women in the heart of and while “Civilized Christian Europe” looked on. The number would have been much higher were not for the intervention of USA to protect whatever remained of Muslim population.

So who is violent and intolerant?

Compare the genocide of 250,000 European Bosnian Muslims –including the mass murder of the 8,000 Muslim boys and men-for no reason other than being Muslim to the death penalty administered against Jewish citizens of an Islamic infant state because they committed treason and aggression and violated a treaty-not because they were Jewish.

How about 1200 Lebanese civilians bombed to death by Israel last July as well as the destruction of Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure?

How about the holocaust and Apartheid imposed on the tormented Palestinians by Israel for past 60 years in refugee camps outside Palestine and in a big Concentration Camp called Gaza and West bank? Just during the last couple of years Israel slaughtered over 700 seven hundred Palestinians most of them children and women.

So who is just and tloerant and who is violent?

NARATHIWAT, Thailand (AFP) - Suspected Islamic separatists have killed three people in Thailand's restive south, including one man they beheaded and set alight, police said Wednesday.

The 53-year-old rubber tapper was beheaded Wednesday in Yala, police said, one of three Muslim-majority provinces along the Malaysian border hit by a worsening insurgency that has killed about 2,000 people in three years.

The man's head was left in the middle of the street, about one kilometre (half a mile) from the charred remains of his body, police Lieutenant Mit Khunchum told AFP.

Mit said the attack was aimed at terrifying residents in the region, where violence has escalated recently despite a raft of peace-building measures proposed by the government, which was installed after a coup in September.

Shortly after the bloody attack early Wednesday, a 25-year-old Buddhist man was killed in a drive-by shooting in nearby Pattani province.

The attacks followed the deadly shooting late Tuesday of a 43-year-old Buddhist rubber tapper in Narathiwat province.

RAPHAEL- ditto for me too-
i will miss seeing your comments and ive learned too-
peace

rafael,

thank you for all your efforts. your posts have been interesting and informative.I enjoyed your style and clear arguments.
God luck with your studies.

MY FINAL RESPONSE:

Unfortunately, my school break is over and I begin classes tomorrow; therefore, I will not be able to participate in this discussion any further.

I would suggest to our readers that they continue to study the matter and come to their own conclusions as to whether or not the Qur'an teaches "predestination" and whether or not it teaches that God subverts individuals as Joseph claims. Personally, I have not been able to come to such a conclusion based on my personal studies and I continue to maintain that the Qur'an teaches freedom of choice and that God DOES NOT subverts individuals' wills.

I present the following verses from the Qur'an to support my view that when all relevant verses are taken into consideration, it is clear that the Qur'an does not teach "predestination". From my reading of the translations of the Qur'an, it is my personal opinion that verses shed light and provide clarification of other verses.

Having said that, I do believe that there is a distinction that needs to be made between our Western concept of "predestination" and the Islamic concept of "qadaa’ wa qadar" (measurement & decree), because I do not believe them to be one and the same, though they may have similarities.

[2:256] No compulsion in the Religion! Surely, distinct is the Right from the Wrong. Thus, whosoever rejects/disbelieves in false deities and believes in God surely takes hold of the firm handle – no breakage for it. And God is Hearing, Knowing.

[10:99] And had willed your Lord, all of them together would have believed on the Earth. So will you compel the Humans until they become believers?
[10:100] And not it is for any Human to believe except by permission of God. And He places the Filth on those who do not use their intellect.

[18:29] And say the Truth is from your Lord. Then whosoever wills let him believe and whosoever wills let him disbelieve. Surely, we have prepared for the wrongdoers a fire, its enclosures will surround them and when they cry for rescue they will be rescued with water like the molten brass, scalding the faces – terrible is the drink and wretched is the resting place.

As far as I am concerned these verses clearly show that humans have the freedom to either accept or reject God's Signs when they have been presented to them in a clear manner. Obviously, the Qur'an teaches that there are rewards/consequences to that decision and since the Qur'an teaches that God is the only Master of the Day of Judgment, then only He is qualified to decide who is going to Hell and who is going to Heaven based on His all-encompassing knowledge of each individual's condition, life circumstances, state of mind, obstacles, opportunities, etc.

I would like to also say that this idea of "predestination" or "God subverting individuals" was an argument that was raised in the Qur'an by the very people who were worshipping others besides God alone.

[6:148] Those who made partners with God say: "If God had willed, neither we nor our fathers would have made partners nor would we have prohibited anything." Likewise, denied those who were before them until they tasted Our punishment. Say, "Is there with you any knowledge which you can provide to us? You follow nothing but the imagination and you are doing nothing but guessing/telling lies."
[6:149] Say, "God has the conclusive argument and had He willed He would have guided you all together."

[16:35] And said those who associate, "If God willed, neither we would worship other than Him any thing – we nor our fathers; nor would we prohibit without Him any thing." Likewise, did those who were before them. Then what is on the Messengers but the conveyance of the clear message?
[16:36] And surely We have sent in every community/nation a Messenger saying, "that you worship God and avoid false deities." Then, of them – some whom God guided; and of them – some upon whom [al Dalaalat: the Straying] was justified.

In my opinion these verses are quite clear that [al mushrikeen: the Associaters] tried to use the concept of "predestination" as an excuse for their (and their forefather's) worship of false deities and prohibiting that which God did not prohibit. This is rebutted by the request for proof that their worship of false deities and concocted laws of prohibition is in accordance with God's Will. On the contrary, the Qur'an teaches that "if God had willed", all humans would be GUIDED on the Right Path, i.e. the worship of Him alone without any partners and the following of His laws and commandments. Please notice that in all the verses throughout the Qur'an in which it speaks of "if God had willed", it is followed by either GUIDING humans on the Right Path or making them into one community of Believers or stating that if He had willed, they would not be committing such-and-such sin (i.e. 6:137). It is never associated with worshipping others besides Him or committing sin or transgressing the limits as is only the case when coming from the mouths of the disbelievers as an excuse for their wrongdoing, whether that be in action, belief, or worship.

So, if God WERE TO ENFORCE His Will upon humans, He would subvert them to FOLLOW His Guidance and perpetually exist in a state of righteousness, but He has given us free will and we are able to choose between accepting or rejecting His Guidance.

For someone to question whether or not God's "misleading/forsaking/allowing to stray/adjudges or deems to be in error" comes before or after the presentation of clear guidance is nonsensical in my personal opinion, especially when one considers the following verses from the Qur'an (and others like it):

[8:50] And if you could see when He causes to die those who disbelieve, the Angels smite their faces and their backs, "Taste punishment of the Blaze.
[8:51] "This is because of your hands sent forth and surely, God is not unjust to His servants."
[8:52] Like the manner of the people of Pharaoh and those before them; they disbelieved/rejected the Signs of God, so God punished them for their sins. Surely, God is Strong, Severe in the Punishment.
[8:53] This is so because God never will change a benefit/favor/blessing until they change what is in themselves. And, surely, God is Hearing, Knowing.
[8:54] Like the manner of the people of Pharaoh and those before them, they denied the Signs of their Lord, so We destroyed them for their sins and We drowned the people of Pharaoh and they all were wrongdoers.

Additionally, as regards to this "misleading/forsaking/allowing to stray/adjudging or deeming to be in error" on the part of God, the Qur'an teaches the following:
[9:115] And never will God [mislead/forsake/allow to stray/adjudge or deem to be in error] a people after He has guided them until He makes clear to them what they should guard against. Surely, God – of everything – is Knowing.

Just as it is clear from the Qur'an [2:26-27] that God "misleads/forsakes/adjudges or deems to be in error/allows to stray, etc.", only the transgressors/the losers, it is just as clear whom He guides:

[29:69] And those who strive in Us, We will certainly guide them to Our paths and surely God is with [al muHsineen: the good-doers].

I apologize that I will no longer be able to participate in this dialogue, but I hope that all that I have presented (in this and prior posts) is correct, informative, and beneficial for others to read and come to their own conclusions.

Before I go, I just want to clarify what I said in the beginning. I know for a fact that the Qur'an teaches the concept of "qadaa' wa qadar" (measurement & decree), but I object to this concept being equated with or being understood as "predestination", at least in the sense as Joseph mentioned in his previous posts, i.e. that God subverts individuals, which is in opposition to the concept of free will and freedom of choice. He cited 5 sets of verses, in which I commented upon throughout this blog, and I am still of the opinion that he has failed in providing convincing proof that these verses support his position. On a few occasions, though, he has slightly shifted his position and stated that at best these verses can be considered NEUTRAL and do not conclusively prove either position, i.e. mine or his. If that is the case (although I definitively disagree), other verses in the Qur'an, such as those that I have cited in this post, clearly sway those "so-called" NEUTRAL verses towards the fact that the Qur'an DOES NOT teach "predestination" and that God DOES NOT subvert individuals and rob them of their freedom of choice and free will.

Peace & Salutations,
Respectfully,
Rafael

well raphael you are certainly very oraganized in the way you present this information-
it gets difficult sometimes for me to keep up and refer and counter refer to previous posts-

peace - youve certainly borne with patience and tenacity your re-presentation-

i am currently re-readng a book by said nursi- are you familiar with this man?
joseph- i would overwhelmingly recommend his writings to you as an example of what youve been asking for-
specualtive theology-

peace and i am appreciating the efforts being made

I hate you all.

This is my response to Joseph's post dated Feb 27, 07 @ 3:38 PM –

-------------------------------------

JOSEPH stated – "The response in Feb. 24, 07 @ 7:23 PM was to 13:33-34. I don't read Arabic, so I didn't know that the response was intended to answer both 7:178 and 13:33-34."

-------------------------------------

My response to the above is as follows:

You obviously misunderstood what I conveyed. You stated in your post dated Feb. 26, 07 @ 7:36 PM, "Finally, you ignored the comments about God causing error or leading astray, further evidence of my claim." If you recall, in your post dated Feb. 25, 07 @ 7:11 PM, you assumed that "we will begin with 7:179…" and nowhere in that post (or any subsequent post related to 7:179) did you address any of your comments regarding your claim that "God causes error or leads astray." Therefore, I responded to each point in your arguments as presented in the posts that I said I was specifically addressing. For what reason would I address your issue of "God causing error or leading astray" that you brought up with 13:33-34 (your post dated Feb 22, 07 @ 1:27 PM) when we are specifically discussing 7:179 and the issues you brought up concerning it? That is simply nonsensical and you don't need to know Arabic to understand that, especially when this was clearly communicated in the English language. So, respectfully, I ask that you please refrain from accusing me of failing or ignoring comments that were never made by you in a post that I am specifically addressing.

-------------------------------------

JOSEPH stated – "Your argument is that several authorities translate the passage to say 'allows to go astray', but to your credit you don't attribute that meaning to your Arabic dictionary from which you take 'forsakes/misleads/adjudges or deems as erring),' all of which different connotations than allowing to go astray, the closes being 'forsakes.' The issue becomes which translation is more correct and believable, and there seem to be an equal number of translations giving God an active rather than a passive role in the outcome. (Ali, Pickthall, Dawood, etc.)"

----------------------------------------

My response to the above is as follows:

It continues to appear to me that you are selective in what you read of my posts. I request that you please reread my post dated Feb. 24, 07 @ 7:23 PM, which you seem to be referring to in the above. From that post you will see that the main reason why I presented FIVE translations of the verse was to rebut your statement that Yusuf Ali was the ONLY one who translates the verses as God "passively allowing them to go astray", which is clearly stated by me just prior to me presenting those five translations. Additionally, I mentioned an authority by the name of Shaykh Abu al Qasim al Husayn al Raaghib al Isfahaanee who stated that the Arabic word [iDlaal], which is ORDINARILY translated as "leading astray", has a TWO-FOLD significance: meaning "leading one astray" as well as "finding one as erring." So, although my Qur'anic dictionary does not attribute the meaning of 'allows to go astray', obviously such a meaning is plausible in the Arabic language considering that there are a sufficient number of authorities who have chosen to convey this meaning into the English language. But I even conceded, for argument's sake, that if we were to take this Arabic word and understand it in an "active" sense as you (and the translators that you presented) suggest, I explained in that same post that in the latter part of [2:26], it clearly states whom God ONLY "misleads":

[2:26]…yuDil-lu bihi katheera[naa] wa yahdee bihi katheera[naa] wa maa yuDlil-lu bihee 'il-laa [a]l faasiqeena.

[2:26]…yuDil-lu (he misleads) bihi (with it/by it) katheera[naa] (many) wa (and) yahdee (he guides) bihi (with it/by it) katheera[naa] (many) wa (and) maa (that/that which) yuDil-lu (he misleads) bihee (with it/by it) 'il-laa (but, except, only) [a]l faasiqeena (the transgressors)…

[2:26]…He misleads with it/by it many and he guides with it/by it many and that which He misleads with it/by it but/except/only the transgressors…

I then proceeded to show that the Qur'an explains who the [faasiqeen: transgressors] are and what their description is, which reflects their deserving their being "mislead/adudged to be in error/forsaken/allowed to stray, etc." by God and is a consequence to their decision to refuse divine guidance, i.e. Signs of God. So, as I mentioned before, it doesn't seem to matter which translation of the Arabic word [D-l-l] one wishes to take, whether God is "active" or "passive"; this "function" comes into play AFTER God's guidance has been made clear to the person and thereafter they refuse/reject God's Signs.

Additionally, in my opinion, you have not proven that these verses, [7:179] & [13:33-34] support your argument that God "subverts individuals".

-------------------------------------

JOSEPH stated – Consider the Noor Foundation translation online:

178. Those alone are rightly guided to whom Allah shows guidance, but whom He adjudges to be astray and leaves them in error, it is these who are the losers.

It excludes the possibility that others could be rightly guided without God's participation when it uses the word 'alone'. In short, the passage splits the world definitively into two groups, showing that only by grace, the choice and will of God to lead a particular person, can a person overcome error.

-------------------------------------

My response to the above is as follows:

Firstly, let us take a look at the transliterated Arabic of the verse in question, which is [7:178]:

[7:178] ma[n] y-yahdi [al] l-laahu fahuwa [a]l muhtadee wa ma[n] y-yuDlil fa 'uwlaaa'ika humu [a]l khaasiroona

[7:178] ma[n] (whosoever) y-yahdi (he guides) [al] l-laahu (the God) fa (thus) huwa (he) [a]l muhtadee (the guided one) wa (and) ma[n] (whosoever) y-yuDlil (he forsakes/misleads/adjudges or deems to be astray/in error) fa (thus) 'uwlaaa'ika (those) humu (they) [a]l khaasiroona (the losers)

[7:178] whosoever He, the God, guides – thus he is the guided one; and whosoever [yuDlil: he forsakes/misleads/adjudges or deems to be astray/in error] are thus those – they are the losers.

The Arabic word(s) signifying "alone" is/are not there in the Arabic and I fail to see why the Noor Foundation (or any other translator for that matter) would place it there. Once again, this goes to show people the importance of checking the accuracy of a translation and not just going by the translation itself. Not doing so can cause or lead people astray…no pun intended. Having said that, your point of 'alone' being used falls to the wayside. I do not blame you, but I put most of the blame on the part of the translators.

The verse is simply saying that a person is [al muhtadee: THE GUIDED ONE] when guided by God and is of [al khaasiroon: THE LOSERS] when forsaken/misled/adjudged to be in error by God. It does not reflect that our freedom of choice to follow or reject the guidance is taken from us or is subjected to whether or not God wants to guide us. It is clear that the Qur'anic message is that God wants to guide us all, but He has given us the free will to reject that guidance if we choose to do so.

-----------------------------------

JOSEPH quoted me, "Even so, if we look at the latter part of [2:26], by way of example, and for argument's sake take [yuDlil] to mean 'mislead'" as an active part by God as opposed to the way the above authorities take it to mean…the verse states unequivocally that God 'misleads' ONLY the transgressors."

JOSEPH continued by saying - There's no point on going on too long about this one. Obviously the meaning depends on the correct rendering of the Arabic, which seems to be ambiguous allowing for both translations, and if the meaning of the word is ambiguous in Arabic, then the meaning of the passage depends entirely on the overall position of the Koran on predestination, which is the subject of the argument. Obviously, I think the meaning from context is clearly indicated by the balance of the translations. The reader should judge.

-------------------------------------

My response to the above is as follows:

I agree that the meaning depends on the correct rendering/understanding of the Arabic and that is why I presented the evidence of the authorities that I cited. I still maintain that whichever of the two meanings of [yuDlil] that one chooses to take, it still does not support your argument that God subverts individuals and that the Qur'an teaches predestination.

For argument's sake, if God actively "misleads" people, in [2:26] He has placed a condition that He would only do so with [al faasiqeena: the transgressors], which the subsequent verse describes as

[2:27] those who break the covenant of God after its confirmation, and cut asunder what God has ordered to be kept together, and make mischief/causes corruption on the Earth. These are [al khaasiroona: the losers].

This verse establishes that [al faasiqeena: the transgressors] are also [al khaasiroona: the losers] and reinforces what is said in [7:178], that God has 'misled' them, not because He just decided to do so for no reason at all, but because these individuals have chosen to be as they are described in [2:27]. So, this "misleading" is conditional on the behavior and choice of the individual.

I agree that the meaning from the context is clearly indicated, but not in the direction that you are presenting it and I leave it to our readers to judge for themselves.

joseph,
you also seem advocate that God does not have foreknowledge according to the judo-christian teachings.
Is my reading correct?

If that is true, could you tell us what God knows and what God does not know according to your understanding of the judo-christain teaching?

joseph,
your understanding of 33:72 is utterly flawed.

Here is how Muslim scholars see it.

(Lo! We offered the trust) obedience and worship (unto the heavens) unto the inhabitants of the heavens (and the earth and the hills) by way of choice and selection, (but they shrank from bearing it) through reward and punishment (and were afraid of it) and were afraid of bearing it. (And man assumed it) Adam assumed it, accepting both the possibility of reward and punishment. (Lo! he hath proved a tyrant) by assuming its bearing; it is also said that this means: he has proved a tyrant by eating from the tree (and a fool) and ignorant of its consequence.

This was the first choice according to the Quran.

Please show us your judo-christian first choice given to humans, IS THERE ANY?

for the record joseph- i- as the listener- for instance never make an assumption that no matter how well educated or scholared in any subject a person can be assumed to always have an answer-

there is a great difference in education and actual knowledge-
the educated claim to "know" many things they have no actual knowledge of- just a clollection of information at their disposal-

it truly has never occurred to me that any one who would say they dont know an answer about the quran was being deceitful- that simply never entered my mind-

there is an inherent suspicion for bad
in the idea presented that goes against my whole soul- heres a piece of unsubstantiated speculation-

i must always have suspicion for good in others intentions- itis a spiritual law and constant for me- but i cant remember where i came up with that-
o yes i can- it is from hanafi-
peace

I was unavoidably detained on business, but I'm back now as promised to continue my posts.

(Victoria: Anonymous might think that I work for the anti-Muslim Answering Islam site, www.answering-islam.org, instead of the pro-Muslim Answering Islam site, www.answering-islam.com, an attempt to misdirect people searching for criticisms of Islam. I don't work for any site or church. I'm a free agent. Anyway, I tend to ignore dumb posts, but thanks for coming to my defense.)

I'm going to begin this post with new evidence from the Muslim theological link that I posted before. The site explained qadar in detail complete with between fifty and a hundred koranic citations and a lot of hadith material. The article says in no uncertain terms that God has perfect foreknowledge of everything that you'll do. The article just makes the claim that God's perfect foreknowledge doesn't contradict free will (it does) and doesn't cause a conflict between the ideas that God is just and that God judges humans (again, it does).

Before I introduce my next quote, I want to introduce a quote to dispatch any lingering beliefs that man has a choice and that this choice is identical with free will as a way in which man is different and created in God's image. I didn't pay special attention to this myself when I read the Koran---it was too strange to take seriously---so I owe some reader of the thread a great debt for mentioning it. Ironically, I think that the reader was a Muslim who didn't see the significance of the quote. This quote casts doubt on the notion that the Koran means the same thing by choice as we commonly mean.

Shakir [33:72] Surely We offered the trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, but they refused to be unfaithful to it and feared from it, and man has turned unfaithful to it; surely he is unjust, ignorant;

Here, God gives a choice to mountains and the heavens. Apparently choices aren't all that special since even inanimate objects had some kind of choice. The Judeo-Christian tradition is entirely different: God never, ever gave inanimate objects any kind of choice. When you see the suggestion that a choice is offered in the Koran, you have to reconcile it with the idea that God determines wills, and I think that the above quote shows that you must reinterpret choice rather than God's interference in wills.

Now we move onto the next piece of evidence for predetermination. I'm not going to comment on it---the text is self-explanatory---but I'll include as many translations as I can find online to thwart attempts to describe this as a misunderstanding based on a poor translation. (I do want to mention that this substantiates my claim, disputed by some, that God creates, appoints, or otherwise manufactures evil men.)

----------

Dawood:
[6:110-115] We will turn away their hearts and eyes from the truth since they refused to believe in it at first. We will let them blunder about in their wrongdoing.
If we sent the angels down to them, and caused the dead to speak with them, and ranged all things in front of them, they would still not believe unless God willed otherwise. But most of them are ignorant men.
Thus we have assigned for every prophet an enemy: the devils among men and jinn, who inspire each other with vain and varnished falsehoods. But had your Lord pleased, they would not have done so. Therefore, leave them to their own inventions, so that the hearts of those who have no faith in the life to come may be inclined to what they say, and, being pleased, persist in their sinful ways.
Should I seek a judge other than God when it is He who has revealed the book for you with all its precepts? Those to whom we gave the scriptures know that it is the truth revealed by your Lord. Therefore have no doubts.
Perfected are the words of your Lord in truth and justice. None can change his words. He hears all and knows all.

Ali:
We (too) shall turn to (confusion) their hearts and their eyes, even as they refused to believe in this in the first instance: We shall leave them in their trespasses, to wander in distraction.
Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in Allah's plan. But most of them ignore (the truth).
Likewise did We make for every Messenger an enemy,- evil ones among men and jinns, inspiring each other with flowery discourses by way of deception. If thy Lord had so planned, they would not have done it: so leave them and their inventions alone.
To such (deceit) let the hearts of those incline, who have no faith in the hereafter: let them delight in it, and let them earn from it what they may.
Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.
The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.

Pickthall:
We confound their hearts and their eyes. As they believed not therein at the first, We let them wander blindly on in their contumacy.
And though We should send down the angels unto them, and the dead should speak unto them, and We should gather against them all things in array, they would not believe unless Allah so willed. Howbeit, most of them are ignorant.
Thus have We appointed unto every prophet an adversary - devils of humankind and jinn who inspire in one another plausible discourse through guile. If thy Lord willed, they would not do so; so leave them alone with their devising;
That the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter may incline thereto, and that they may take pleasure therein, and that they may earn what they are earning.
Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers.
And the word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

Shakir:
And We will turn their hearts and their sights, even as they did not believe in it the first time, and We will leave them in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on.
And even if We had sent down to them the angels and the dead had spoken to them and We had brought together all things before them, they would not believe unless Allah pleases, but most of them are ignorant.
And thus did We make for every prophet an enemy, the Shaitans from among men and jinn, some of them suggesting to others varnished falsehood to deceive (them), and had your Lord pleased they would not have done it, therefore leave them and that which they forge.
And that the hearts of those who do not believe in the hereafter may incline to it and that they may be well pleased with it and that they may earn what they are going to earn (of evil).
Shall I then seek a judge other than Allah? And He it is Who has revealed to you the Book (which is) made plain; and those whom We have given the Book know that it is revealed by your Lord with truth, therefore you should not be of the disputers.
And the word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

Palmer:
We will overturn their hearts and their eyesights, even as they believed not at first; and we will leave them, in their rebellion, blindly wandering on.
And had we sent down unto them the angels, or the dead had spoken to them, or we had gathered everything unto them in hosts 1, they would not have believed unless that God pleased--but most of them are ignorant.
So have we made for every prophet an enemy,--devils of men and ginns; some of them inspire others with specious speech to lead astray; but had thy Lord pleased they would not have done it; so leave them with what they do devise.
And let the hearts of those who believe not in the hereafter listen to it; and let them be well pleased with it; and let them gain what they may gain!
Of other than God shall I crave a decree, when it is He who has sent down to you the Book in detail, and those to whom we gave the Book know that it is sent down from thy Lord, in truth? be thou not then of those who doubt.
The words of thy Lord are fulfilled in truth and justice; there is none to change His words, for He both hears and knows.

Rodwell:
And we will turn their hearts and their eyes away from the truth, because they did not believe therein at first, and we will leave them in their transgressions, wandering in perplexity.
And though we had sent down the angels to them, and the dead had spoken to them, and we had gathered all things about them in tribes, they had not believed, unless God had willed it! but most of them do not know it.
Thus have we given an enemy to every prophet Satans among men and among Djinn: tinsel discourses do they suggest the one to the other, in order to deceive: and had thy Lord willed it, they would not have done it. Therefore, leave them and their vain imaginings--
And let the hearts of those who believe not in the life to come incline thereto, and let them find their content in this, and let them gain what they are gaining.
What! shall I seek other judge than God, when it is He who hath sent down to you the distinguishing Book? They to whom we have given the Book know that it is sent down from thy Lord with truth. Be not thou then of those who doubt.
And the words of thy Lord are perfect in truth and in justice: none can change his words: He is the Hearing, Knowing.

Noor Foundation:
We shall confound their hearts and their eyes, since they did not believe in it (-God's signs) in the first instance, and We shall leave them alone wandering blindly in their transgression.
Even if We should send down the angels to them, and the dead should speak to them, and even if We should bring all things together face to face (to them), they would not believe unless Allâh had (enforced) His will. The thing is that most of them persist in ignorance.
And in the same manner have We made the evil ones from among (ordinary) human beings and the jinns enemies to every prophet; some of them suggest one to another gilded speech to beguile (them). Had your Lord (enforced) His will, they would not have done so; so leave them alone with what they forge;
And the result (of their so doing) is that the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter are inclined to it (- their guile), and they take pleasure therein and they continue committing their (evil) deeds as they are doing.
(Say,) `What! shall I seek for a judge (to decide between us) other than Allâh, when it is He, Who has revealed to you this perfect Book clearly explained?' And those to whom We have given this Book know that it is revealed by your Lord with all the requirements of truth and wisdom, so be not of the disputers.
The (prophetic) word of your Lord is bound to be fulfilled in truth and justice. There is no one who can change His words. He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.

----------

I suppose that some people are going to try to hang on the word 'since' in a couple of translations the possibility that wills are free until men choose to reject revelation. I just want to reemphasize the point that I made in the beginning: assuming the best case for the translation, the nature of the choice is never made explicit. Did God make the initial choice for men as well? Assuming that He doesn't represents a confirmation bias in reading the passage. If you look at 6:108, I think that the evidence is that God determines the initial choice, too.

Tomorrow, I'll try to post another piece of evidence.

JOSEPH, anonymous thinks youre an islamic apologist!
thats a hoot-

thats why we read ALL the words anonymous-

i hope that gives you a giggle when you get back-

dont worry joseph- no one else thinks youre a lackey for the islamic cabal---

Joseph
you sure know how to pile up a bunch of balony and think it is a rational argument. Are you sure you are not one of the pigs at Answering Islam website or one of their lackeys? They use the same twisted logic to try to dupe the readers knowing full well any one with half a brain can see through them...

I'm getting a little tired of this tedious argument, so since I have some time this evening, I'm going to try to cut my argument to the bare essentials.

For 10:100, I posted:

[10:100-101] None can have faith except by God's leave. He will visit His scourge upon the senseless. Say: 'Behold what the heavens and earth contain!' But neither signs nor warnings will avail the unbelievers.

Here is the main part of Raphael's response (the only part that I can find):

**********

As it pertains to 10:100-101, I think the previous verse [10:99] sheds a little light on them:

[10:99] And if your Lord had wished, all those on the Earth would certainly have believed – all of them together. Will you then compel the Humans until they become Believers?
[10:100] And it is not for a soul to believe except by permission of God, and He will place the rijsa (defilement, filth, un-cleanliness, punishment, calamity, etc.) upon those who will not use reason.
[10:101] Say, "Observe what is in the Heavens and the Earth." But of no avail will be signs or warners to a people who do not believe.

In my opinion, these verses clearly show that God said to Muhammad (or anyone reading or hearing the Qur'an) that you cannot compel anyone to believe. God Himself has not resorted to compulsion for a creation that He provided the exercise of free will to. The statement, "it is not for a soul to believe except by permission (or will) of God," has to be understood in light of the fact that this is true if we understand that the function of "disbelieving and believing" are both within the permission of God, i.e. giving us free will, which is attested to clearly in the Qur'anic worldview.

**********

My response is that the quoted passage, 10:99, doesn't actually say that anyone has a free choice. The passage can simply mean that force is futile in changing minds that God has already decided, so the passage remains consistent with the idea of predestination, but I don't intend to argue that the passage represents dispositive evidence. I admitted earlier that the line that God's leave is required for a soul to believe could simply mean that God has granted the leave to everyone and not that God had predetermined people's beliefs, but the sentence contains the possibility of predestination. In short, the three verses are neutral with respect to predetermination of wills and behaviors. I submit this to the reader along with my argument to refute Raphael's claim that it cannot support predetermination.

For 13:33-34, I posted along with several supporting alternative translations:

[13:33-34] Who is it that watches every soul and all its actions? Yet they set up other gods besides God. Say: 'Name them. Would you tell Him of that which is unknown to Him on the earth? Or are they merely empty words?'
Indeed, their foul devices seem fair to the unbelievers, for they are debarred from the right path. None can guide those whom God has led astray. Punishment awaits them in this nether life: but more grievous is the punishment of the life to come. From God they will have no protector.

In response, Raphael posted:

**********

[13:33] In fact, their plotting/planning is made fair-seeming/attractive to those who disbelieve, and they are kept back/averted from the Path. And whom God allows to go astray/leave in error, for him then there is no guide.

In my opinion, I see no problem with this because the verse does not say that it is God who makes their plotting and planning fair-seeming or attractive to them. It is not God who keeps them back or averts them from His Path. It just says that this is what happens to them. For those who have read the entire Qur'an would come to know that it does not necessarily need to be said WHO is responsible for this, because it is revealed in other verses.

**********

The argument then turned to the translation of God's behavior 'leading astray' as opposed to allowing to go astray.

The argument here boils down to the plausibility and believability of the translations. I have submitted a long list of translations supporting my point understanding, and Raphael has submitted a long list of translations supporting his position.

Where we stand is that there is evidence for reading the passage both ways, and at worst, the passage could be seen as permitting individual will if you don't assume that God make's peoples planning seem fair to them. However, nothing about the passage makes it inconsistent with predestination, and I refer it to the reader to disprove Raphael's counterpoint that it cannot support predetermination.

I posted 18:57:

[18:57] Who is more wicked than the man who, when reminded of his Lord's revelations, turns away from them and forgets what his own hands have done? We have cast veils over their hearts lest they understand Our words, and made them hard of hearing. Call them as you may to the right path, they shall never be guided.

Here we finally achieve some concensus. Raphael writes:

**********

As mentioned in a previous post, the veiling of the hearts, sealing of the ears, deafness in the ears (as mentioned in many verses throughout the Qur’an) are a consequence for those who are indifferent and reject the Signs of God AFTER they have been made clear to them, i.e. the Disbelievers. All of the verses that I have read regarding this reveal the same “law of God” in action: the outright rejection of that which is made clear (i.e., God’s Signs) results in this happening to them, which is attributed to God because it is His “natural law of cause and effect”. I think it is common sense that the sealing of the heart and deafness in the ears and blinding of the eyes are all spiritual happenings and is not to be taken literally. Basically, those who refuse to employ their hearts, sight and ears for the comprehension/reasoning/seeing of the Signs of God, consequently their spiritual capacities for doing so become “out-of-use and rusted”, so to speak. Also, the tone of the verses that describe the Disbelievers is that they persistently rejected the Signs of God after they had been made clear to them. This is clear when one looks at the amount of time that the prophets and messengers spent with their peoples/communities and kept explaining God’s Signs to them while they were among them, despite the oppression, ridicule, persecution, mockery, murder/assassination attempts, etc.

**********

There is no disagreement here about translation, and we seem to be in agreement that in this case at least when God says that he puts a seal on people's hearts or a stain or uncleanliness on them, God interferes in their judgement. The point of disagreement here seems to be strictly over whether or not this is justified. I have two points to make on this score: first, the passage doesn't indicate the causal relationship between the veiling of a heart and rejection of revelation---the veiling in this passage could be before the revelation rather than after the revelation; second, the implication that God can seal a heart at some point implies perfect knowledge of the actions of the person after that point. If a person's will is truly free, God should not be able to decide before their death that they will not try to redeem themselves. So I consider that even with Raphael's attempt at rehabilitation, this verse still falls into the trap of predestination. Of course, I'm sure that Raphael will argue differently, but barring any other disputes, I submit this to the reader for consideration.

Finally, in my first batch of quotes, I submitted 26:198-202:

[26:198-202] If We had revealed it to a foreign man, and he had recited it to them, they still would not have believed it. Thus do We put unbelief into the hearts of the guilty: they shall not believe in it until they see the woeful scourge, which will suddenly smite them when they are heedless.

I posted many variations of the translation, and they all agree with the exception of the rendering of the antecedent of one pronoun, 'it,' as 'unbelief.' Dawood's translation can be reconciled with all of the others by writing:

[26:198-202] If We had revealed it to a foreign man, and he had recited it to them, they still would not have believed it. Thus do We put [it] into the hearts of the guilty: they shall not believe in it until they see the woeful scourge, which will suddenly smite them when they are heedless.

Raphael wrote:

**********

At first it didn’t appear to me that N.J. Dawood translated the verse in a way that would give the wrong understanding of what the verse is conveying, but upon closer inspection and looking at the Arabic, I had to take exception to “Thus do We put UNBELIEF into the hearts of the guilty.” I think he should have done what Ali, Pickthall, Palmer, and Rodwell did and leave the pronoun alone instead of translating it as a noun, i.e. UNBELIEF, which it is not; although I will state that it COULD be referring to unbelief, but looking at the context, it seems more likely to me that the pronoun is referring to the Qur’an. If so, then in this sense the verse means that the Qur’anic truths entered into their hearts by means of its arguments and proofs, but they have chosen to reject it still and so they now have no excuse when the painful punishment comes upon them suddenly while they are unaware.

Regardless of how you interpret the pronoun, if you look at the context of the verses in question, you will see that the particular verse that you take issue with, i.e. verse 199, is simply God’s expression or figure of speech that accentuates the idolatrous Meccan’s obstinacy or stubbornness. The Qur’an was revealed to one of their own (Muhammad) in their own language (verse 195) and they still refused to accept it as a revelation/scripture from God. They were so adamant about rejecting it, that God is saying here that even though the Qur’an is mentioned in the previous scriptures (verse 196), and even though there are scholars of the Children of Israel that know it to be true (verse 197)…they are still rejecting it. They are so stubborn in their thinking that God is revealing to Muhammad (and to those who were with him) that even if the Qur’an was given to a foreigner who didn’t know how to speak Arabic, they would still not believe in it. We, or at least I and the people that I associate with, speak this way in every day language when we are describing the state of people who have shown such stubbornness that regardless of the amount of evidence you show them to substantiate your position, they will still refuse to accept it. And so, God knows that there are people who will not accept His truth until the end is upon them. History attests to this even in the secular realm. There are people who simply will not believe that something is going to happen until it does. For example, look at Global Warming. There are those who believe it to be true and there are others who do not…that it is just an exaggeration. Well, in the event that it is true and we continue to operate in the world as we have been because we think that it is not true…we will not come to the realization until it is too late and the events of “The Day After Tomorrow” take place.

**********

Raphael goes on to interpret the passage by appeals to other parts of the Koran, a method that I reject when the issue is exactly how to fix the meaning of the other parts of the Koran.

I want to analyze the sentence carefully by taking Raphael's assumption and applying it to the passage to see the results. If we take 'it' to mean 'the Koran' or 'the revelation' or something similar, the passage becomes:

[26:198-202] If We had revealed [the Koran] to a foreign man, and he had recited [the Koran] to them, they still would not have believed [the Koran]. Thus do We put [the Koran] into the hearts of the guilty: they shall not believe in [the Koran] until they see the woeful scourge, which will suddenly smite them when they are heedless.

I incorrectly identified the antecedent for 'them' in the passage. I think now based on Raphael's reply that 'them' is supposed to refer to the Meccans; the identification makes good sense. Raphael's claim actually helps my point---I had originally interpreted 'them' to refer to some nebulous group of foreigners---but my argument would function in the same way regardless of the antecedent of the pronoun.

The passage draws an analogy using the word 'thus' ('like that' in Raphael's translation) between a hypothetical situation and God's actions. If we assume that 'thus' refers only to depositing knowledge of the Koran into people's hearts, the analogy breaks down because the insertion of knowledge into 'them' in the first clause by the foreign man never occurs at all. God cannot be comparing his insertion of knowledge of the Koran into the hearts of the guilty to something that never happened. He must be referring to manner of the reception that represents the culmination of the hypothetical situation of the first clause, i.e. with disbelief. The manner of the reception is at a minimum the basis for the analogy, and I hope to show that for the analogy to make sense, it must be substantially more.

There are two additional possibilities in reading the analogy. The first is that the analogy extends to God's agency in the reception indicated in the second part of the analogy. The second is that the analogy extends to the persistence of disbelief indicated in the second part of the analogy. If the first of these possibilities is true---the analogy extends to God's agency in belief---the speaker in the passage affirms that he governs disbelief in the hypothetical situation as he governs it for the guilty. If the analogy extends to the second possibility---God causes persistence in disbelief---then the result is essentially the same. The people who are the antecedent of the pronoun, 'them,' whose only stated offence is disbelief have their wills determined by God from that point forward raising all of the problems for free will in general that I mentioned with regard to 18:57.

Finally, the only plausible line of attack on this passage is that the analogy might not extend from the mode of reception, disbelief, to God's agency in initial disbelief or it's persistence at all. I find this hard to believe for two reasons. If 'them' refers to the Meccans, then the hypothetical of the first part of the analogy clearly refers to a miracle, the pronouncement of the Koran, an Arabic revelation, by a non-Arab, and therefore makes a dramatic statement about the nature of the disbelief in the hypothetical. The assertion of disbelief on the part of the Meccans in the hypothetical extends to even miraculous revelations and must be pathological, the result of design, otherwise, how could the speaker know that the Meccans in the hypothetical would balk at a miracle. In essence, the speaker is saying that if a non-Arabic speaker had spoken the Koran to the Arabs, they still wouldn't have believed in the Koran. The same holds true if the antecedent of them is some nebulous group of foreigners. The revelation of an Arabic poem would be miraculous in either case, and claiming certain knowledge of the reaction of people to a miracle indicates design and predetermination in their reactions. The point now becomes that the first part of the analogy is richer than it might appear at first glance, and the pathological doubt of the people in the hypothetical must naturally be represented in the analogy. God's interference in the will corresponds to the pathological disbelief of the people in the hypothetical.

Finally, if one insists that the analogy cannot possibly extend to all of the facets of the hypothetical and must be bland, I have to ask if God couldn't craft a better analogy, an analogy without the extended meaning.

Unless new material appears, I've made my rebuttal in full and believe that this passage cannot be read in any other way proving predetermination of individual wills, and I'm submitting it to the readers for their consideration.

Tomorrow I'll introduce two new pieces of textual evidence from the Koran.

The response in Feb. 24, 07 @ 7:23 PM was to 13:33-34. I don't read Arabic, so I didn't know that the response was intended to answer both 7:178 and 13:33-34. I guess that I should summarize your argument and offer my rebuttal.

Your argument is that several authorities translate the passage to say 'allows to go astray,' but to your credit you don't attribute that meaning to your Arabic dictionary from which you take '(forsakes/misleads/adjudges or deems as erring),' all of which different connotations than allowing to go astray, the closest being 'forsakes.' The issue becomes which translation is more correct and believable, and there seem to be an equal number of translations giving God an active rather than a passive role in the outcome. (Ali, Pickthall, Dawood, etc.) Consider the Noor Foundation translation online:

178. Those alone are rightly guided to whom Allâh shows guidance, but whom He adjudges to be astray and leaves them in error, it is these who are the losers.

It excludes the possibility that others could be rightly guided without God's participation when it uses the word 'alone.' In short, the passage splits the world definitively into two groups, showing that only by grace, the choice and will of God to lead a particular person, can a person overcome error.

You wrote:

Even so, if we look at the latter part of [2:26], by way of example, and for argument's sake take [yuDlil] to mean "mislead" as an active part by God as opposed to the way the above authorities take it to mean (i.e. adjudged to be in error/allows to stray/leaves in error, etc.), the verse states unequivocally that God "misleads" ONLY the transgressors:

There's no point in going on too long about this one. Obviously the meaning depends on the correct rendering of the Arabic, which seems to be ambiguous allowing for both translations, and if the meaning of the word is ambiguous in Arabic, then the meaning of the passage depends entirely on the overall position of the Koran on predestination, which is the subject of the argument. Obviously, I think that the meaning from context is clearlys indicated by the balance of the translations. The reader should judge.

I also want to announce my intention to introduce new quotes after completing this discussion. The quotes and argument follow the following article:

http://www.ahya.org/amm/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=12

I extracted a few quotes from this article on qadar. I didn't pay special attention to them when I read the Koran because the overall message of absolute determination of all things according to God's will seemed perfectly clear, but because the argument has become an effort to find any plausible reading of some of the sentences to make them support free will, I decided to look into the work of scholars in the area. I won't introduce my quotes for rebuttal until after we conclude the discussion of the current quotes, but this should give you time to study the writer's quotes in support of absolute determination according to God's will.

I don't have much time today, so I'll resume with 10:100 tomorrow.

JOSEPH:

Regarding your post dated Feb 26, 07 @ 7:36 PM...

You stated,

"My argument was that the words 'choice' and 'will' are necessary to exclude predetermined behavior as an interpretation."

I respon