4.In Surah ASH-SHURA chapter number 42 verse number 13
**"The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah - the which We have sent by inspiration to thee - and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion, and make no divisions therein: to those who worship other things than Allah, hard is the (way) to which thou callest them. Allah chooses to Himself those whom He pleases, and guides to Himself those who turn (to Him). "
**About his death, show me the Ayah…I can show you the ayah against your comments.
I have cut some of the parts to keep the quote short, I am going to address the rest.
First thing is that in the above interpretation, the claim is made that this is a vision, but there is no real reason provided how is it determined to be a vision. I read the reasoning, but to me it still does not provide how this verse is interpreted this way.
Let us look at the verse again and I will add the next verse with it for the context, I will also try to make a very detailed effort to explain it and why the argument offered is not applicable and how it does not apply to this verse.
“Or the like of him who passed by a town, and it had fallen down upon its roofs; he said: How will God give it life after its death (mautiha)? So God caused him to die (amata) for a hundred years, then raised him to life. He said, ‘How long have you tarried?’ He said, ‘I have tarried a day, or a part of a day.’ (God) said, 'Nay! you have tarried a hundred years; then look at your food and drink - years have not passed over it; and look at your donkey; and that We may make you a sign to men, and look at the bones, how We set them together, then clothed them with flesh; so when it became clear to him, he said, ‘I know that God has power over all things.’” (Al-Baqarah 2:259)
Here is the sequence: The first phrase used by the passing person is “How will God give it life after its death”. Essentially the person does not understand how can God raise the dead - he doubts it, or is confused about it.
Then God says that He caused him to die for a hundred years – very plain, simple, no confusion, it does not say God made it to appear. If you want to look at other verses, this is how Quran says that God made something to ‘appear’ a certain way:
“That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-” (An-Nisa 4:157)
This is how Quran says a vision was shown:
“And when We said to you: Surely your Lord encompasses men; and We did not make **the vision which We showed you **but a trial for men and the cursed tree in the Quran as well; and We cause them to fear, but it only adds to their great inordinacy.” (Bani Israel 17:60)
The word here used is “ru’ya” (vision) - Quran is very precise, no confusion. When it wants to explain something, it does it in plain Arabic. Now let us say God really wants to tell that He actually caused someone to die and raised it. How does He say?
“So God caused him to die (amata) for a hundred years, then raised him to life.”
To me, this is plain. It does not say “God showed him a vision of death for hundred years”, neither does it say “It was made to appear to him that he was dead for hundred years.”
It simply states what God actually did. I would like to repeat my question again, let us say we accept that was not real death, then how should have God really expressed that He caused the person to die for a hundred years?
Then follows this sequence:
“He said, ‘How long have you tarried?’ He said, ‘I have tarried a day, or a part of a day.’ (God) said, 'Nay! you have tarried a hundred years;”
The person here is saying that I have tarried for a day. In other words, he does not think he was dead for hundred years. But God’s response is very clear:
“Nay! you have tarried a hundred years”
This is really a reinforcement, “No, you were in that state for a hundred years” - if it were a vision, then how could he be in that state for a hundred years?
Given this, there is no way to take any other interpretation.
My question, which remains unanswered over and over again is this: If you think that God did not have this person dead for hundred years, how would he have expressed it to let us know that this person was actually dead for hundred years?
Right now I am not going to get into alternate verses because it then becomes multiple threads and difficult for me to track.
If we establish from those verses that God can raise the dead whenever He wants, and He has done so, then these verses will have to be understood keeping that in mind.
To further add to my post of verse 2:259, if we look at the verse that immediately follows it:
"And when Abraham said: My Lord! show me how will you give life to the dead, He said: What! do you not believe? He said: Yes, but that my heart may be at ease. He said: Then take four of the birds, then train them to follow you, then place on every mountain a part of them, then call them, they will come to you flying; and know that God is Mighty, Wise." (Al-Baqarah 2:260)
Following in the same context, Qurn an also alludes to when prophet Abraham (pbuh) wanted to see how something can be raised from dead. God asked him to undergo an exercise at the end of which he divded the bird in parts, placed on the mountain and the bird came flying to him.
Looking at the context, it really is very clear that both these men questioned about raising the dead, and both were shown how - the first man by actually having become dead for a hundred years, in the case of Abraham (pbuh), the bird, which had been torn into parts, being brought back to life and came flying to him.
In the above verse, God is talking about ‘Spiritually’ dead people. Think of birds as people who prophets of Allah train according to what has been revealed to them. That’s why Quran says ‘they listen and they obey’ (Sama’na wa ata’na).
I will end this discussion by saying I have nothing to add here anymore. This verses are far more clear, if we are bent upon saying that birds are actually people, and we are bent upon saying that God did not (or cannot) make people die and raise them despite clear verse of Quran, what evidence can I bring?
Is God trying to fool me, by saying birds (tayr) when He actually meant men (naas)? Why not just say men?
Knowing Arabic, when I am standing in prayer, listening to the recitation of these verses, am I supposed to say, ‘wait – this is not what it is actually saying, there is this hidden meaning to it’. Even though it says tayr, and tayr is used in almost all of Arabic literature as birds and it cannot mean men, and it is impossible to conceive such a meaning of this word!
It is like saying in English: “I saw a bird, it was dead, but when I called it, it actually came flying!” but then, despite the clear words in English, one still insist on saying it was actually not a bird rather people!
Tayr means the same thing – good old flying bird, that’s about it. If you can bring me ONE Arabic dictionary that suggests that it can mean men, I am willing to continue discussion at least on this part.
**[3:50] **And will send him as a Messenger to the Children of Israel with the Message, 'I come to you with a Sign from your Lord, which is, that I will fashion out for you a creation out of clay after the manner of a bird; then I will breath into it a new spirit and it will become a soaring being by the command of Allah; and I will heal the night-blind and the leprous, and I will quicken the dead (spiritual), by the command of Allah; and I will announce to you what you will eat and what you will store up in your houses. Surely, therein is a Sign for you, if you are believers.
Mind that! Jesus was called upon instead of Allah, by Christains when Quraan was revealed. Allah said ;
**[22:74] **O men, a similitude is set forth, so listen to it. Surely those on whom you call upon instead of Allahcannot create even a fly, though they should all combine together for the purpose. And if the fly should snatch away anything from them, they cannot recover it therefrom. Weak, indeed, are both the seeker and the sought.
So, there must not be contradictions in the sayings of Allah.
The verse that you have used does not have ‘into this world again’ in it, that has been added by the translator. Secondly, this verse does not talk about people who ‘die’, rather a ‘township’ which God has ‘destroyed’ - see the usage of ‘We have destroyed’. If I translate the verse and remove the additional words added by the translator, it would be something like this:
“And it is binding on a town which We have destroyed that they shall not return.” (Al-Anbiya 21:95)
In other words, God has said that God has Himself destroyed these townships - this also supports the fact that God can do anything anytime anywhere when he wants to do so.
Now, if we look at Quran and history of nations, we see that nations were destroyed when they rejected messengers of God sent to them. As a proof, Quran has presented stories of nations of Noah, Abraham, Lot, Shu’aib, Salih, Moses (pbut) etc and I have mentioned those time and again. This verse is explaining further and saying that when such a nation is destroyed, it does not return. Now. let us consider the following verse from Quran:
“Ah! Alas for (My) Servants! There comes not a messenger to them but they mock him! See they not how many generations before them we destroyed? Not to them will they return:” (Ya-Sin 36:30-31)
As you see, in this verse, Quran is mentioning about the generations that were destroyed before them and said that they will not return to their messengers “Not to them will they return.” Secondly, Quran has used the same word ‘ahlakna’ in both verses to explain the ‘destroy’ part.
Looking at this set of parallel verses, it really is the mentioning that those nations will not return to their messengers.
As a side remark, let me present this point of view. Let us assume that giving death can mean sleep. We know that there were nations that were made to die (‘sleep’) for hundreds of years, then why can’t prophet Jesus (pbuh) be having same kind of death (‘sleep’) and be brought back at a later day?
The point is whether God gave previous nations/people death or sleep, it is synonymous to what prophet Jesus (pbuh) is going through. If you bring a verse from Quran saying he died, I will bring forth the same argument that that death is ‘sleep’.
In this case, how do you interpret the 49th verse of Al-e-Imran? Especially the part, “I will fashion out for you a creation out of clay after the manner of a bird; then I will breath into it a new spirit and it will become a soaring being by the command of Allah;”
“And We have fastened every man’s (insaan) fate (taair) to his neck, and We will bring forth to him on the resurrection day a book which he will find wide open:” (Bani-Israel 17:13)
If you intended to show that ‘taair’ meant man, then that is not the case. Word insaan is used for man. Taair here means fate.
As for the meaning of this word, I was aware of it, however, it was not relevant to Surah Baqarah’s verse that we were discussing. Philologically, it seems it was used in the meaning of ‘bird’ by Arabs but since they used birds to find their fate before Islam (like we do with parrots in the sub-continent), it came to be used as fate too. It is for the same reason that western dictionaries will list it’s second meaning as omen or augury. However, none of these meanings are related to the verse of Surah Baqarah under discussion. Even then, the meaning of this word as ‘men’ is not possible. Therefore my claim:
still stands.
I hope we are just not going through Quran to find some verse that promotes our point of view. I hope we have not decided that ‘this is right’ and now we must find how Quran can be used to justify it. In other words, I hope we are not trying to give guidance to Quran. Quran is guidance, we must change our opinions according to Quran. If a Quranic verse goes against our beliefs, then we must be willing to adjust our beliefs and mould in accordance with Quran. It must be Quran that shall always judge. I do not wish to offend anyone, but it is something on which our salvation depends.
It is for this reason that I always stress on taking out time to truly and correctly understand Quran itself, even if one spends 15 minutes every day (it is a lot - you will be surprised!)
Point 1: Prophets can never be Outside from Men or angels !!
**[22:76] **Allah chooses His Messengers from among angels and from among men. Surely, Allah is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.
Point 2: Allah do not reveals to anyone except his Prophets !!
**[72:27] **He is the Knower of the unseen; and He reveals not His secrets to anyone. [72:28] Except to a Messenger of His whom He chooses. And then He causes an escort of guarding angels to go before him and behind him.
**[3:180] **Allah would not leave the believers in the state in which you are, until He separated the wicked from the good. Nor would Allah reveal to you the unseen. But Allah chooses of His Messengers whom He pleases. Believe, therefore, in Allah and His Messengers. If you believe and be righteous, you shall have a great reward.
Point 3: Allah sent his revelation to Prophets:
**[4:164] **Surely, We have sent revelation to thee, as We sent revelation to Noah and the Prophets after him; and We sent revelation to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and his children and to Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and We gave David a Book.
Result : History will repeats itself & Promised Messiah will be rejected: [36:31] Alas for my servants! there comes not a Messenger to them but they mock at him.
I believe I do not have much to add to this discussion any more. The viewers can go through the discussion and see for themselves which opinion they like more. If there is a new development, I will return to this thread.
I did not intend to revive this thread, however, I have revised my opinion about the meaning of the word 'maut'. From Quranic references, it seems that this word is used figuratively as well as to imply sleep. Therefore, I take back my argument that the word 'maut' is only used to mean death. However, it is definitely used to mean death in addition to its figurative usages as well as its usage in the meaning of sleep.
Having said that, I believe that in the verse that we talked about, the word 'maut' cannot be taken to mean otherwise. The reason is that if we look at verse 2:259, the phrase "how shall God bring it to life after its death" does not make much sense if death meant sleep here. Anybody can bring anything to life after their sleep, so why would the person be surprised about God bringing him to life after sleep?
The meaning of the word 'tayr' is nonetheless the same, so that argument still stands.
Clarifying this lightens the burden on me that I had after finding that my opinion regarding the meaning of the word 'maut' was not correct. However, I am willing to accept truth as I find it, I hope others are able to do so too!
