Allah swears by it

[Mirdath]

I bolded the part above.

I wanted to correct you. This is not true.

For one thing, I just read it to make sure that I did not have a misunderstanding, and it is clearly Allah speaking in the text.

For another thing, it is Muslim teaching that the Koran is the speech of Allah. All parts of the Koran are Allah speaking.

Mea culpa. I read 70:1 about the ‘questioner’ and assumed otherwise.

What you have stated is part of the point that I believe Montalban is making. God knows that all these things will pass away, therefore He would never promise something and compare the lasting of His promise to their permanency.

Someday there will be no more rainbows.

But when rainbows and moons alike pass away, so too has the world – after its passing, the conditions under which the oath (referring specifically to the moon example) operate are no longer pertinent; there’s no need to keep people accountable for their sins when they’re all either in Jannah or Jahannam.

 

[eliasaph99]

Mea culpa. I read 70:1 about the ‘questioner’ and assumed otherwise.

Someday there will be no more rainbows.

But when rainbows and moons alike pass away, so too has the world – after its passing, the conditions under which the oath (referring specifically to the moon example) operate are no longer pertinent; there’s no need to keep people accountable for their sins when they’re all either in Jannah or Jahannam.

But God did not swear by the rainbow. The permanence of the rainbow is not related to the permanence of the promise.

Are cities permanent? Are runners permanent? Are figs and olives?

These are clearly perishable within the experience of man. There are numerous ancient cities which are no more. The other two don’t need anything said.

For that matter, are mountains?

No. We know that mountains rise and fall from natural processes (tectonic plate movement, volcanic activity, etc.).

Suppose mankind exists for 100 million years. It is perfectly conceivable and plausible that the mountains which we know will be no more at that time. They are not permanent.

 

[Mirdath]

Suppose mankind exists for 100 million years. It is perfectly conceivable and plausible that the mountains which we know will be no more at that time. They are not permanent.

We know. Did ancient civilizations work out plate tectonics? Probably not. To people who do not know the workings of natural processes as well as we do now, what is a better symbol of permanence than a really big rock?

We still fall for this. Diamonds aren’t forever – we’d just like to believe it’s so. It’s good enough for us, and that’s what keeps de Beers in business; oaths that last as long as mountains and rainbows were good enough for some people back then, and that’s what kept the Abrahamic religions going.

 

[eliasaph99]

We know. Did ancient civilizations work out plate tectonics? Probably not. To people who do not know the workings of natural processes as well as we do now, what is a better symbol of permanence than a really big rock?

We still fall for this. Diamonds aren’t forever – we’d just like to believe it’s so. It’s good enough for us, and that’s what keeps de Beers in business; oaths that last as long as mountains and rainbows were good enough for some people back then, and that’s what kept the Abrahamic religions going.

No.

God only swears by Himself in the Bible.

 

[Morning_Star15]

We know. Did ancient civilizations work out plate tectonics? Probably not. To people who do not know the workings of natural processes as well as we do now, what is a better symbol of permanence than a really big rock?

We still fall for this. Diamonds aren’t forever – we’d just like to believe it’s so. It’s good enough for us, and that’s what keeps de Beers in business; oaths that last as long as mountains and rainbows were good enough for some people back then, and that’s what kept the Abrahamic religions going.

But if it was God Himself saying the things that are written in the Qu’ran, wouldn’t He have known more than the people of the time (i.e. that mountains are not permanent)? I don’t think God would have to bring Himself to the point of believing erroneously that something that is permanent is impermanent in order to communicate with His creatures, or tell them something that is untrue (that mountains are permanent).

Either way, even if mountains, etc. were permanent, they would still be lesser than God, so why would God swear by them?

 

[Mirdath]

But if it was God Himself saying the things that are written in the Qu’ran, wouldn’t He have known more than the people of the time (i.e. that mountains are not permanent)? I don’t think God would have to bring Himself to the point of believing erroneously that something that is permanent is impermanent in order to communicate with His creatures, or tell them something that is untrue (that mountains are permanent).

Frame of reference. If people see mountains as an emblem of permanence, to say something is like a mountain is to imply its permanence. Just like love and diamonds today. Can you imagine just how well ‘Honey, my love for you is like something that turns into graphite in several billion years or could burn in the right conditions’ would go over?

It’s not that God is wrong, he’s taking a little poetic license – which is all well and good and happens in most any story, objectively or subjectively or any of the other kinds of true or not.

Either way, even if mountains, etc. were permanent, they would still be lesser than God, so why would God swear by them?

As I said earlier, not every oath requires you to put yourself at stake. If you were in court, you’d swear on a bible, not on your body or soul – especially not your soul, that’s a sin last I checked. The bible? That’s just a book, words on paper – words you value, yes, but you could write them down yourself and swear on a bible of your own transcription. If God doesn’t think it necessary to swear on himself and chooses one of his own creations to serve as the object, are you going to stop him?

 

[Morning_Star15]

Frame of reference. If people see mountains as an emblem of permanence, to say something is like a mountain is to imply its permanence. Just like love and diamonds today. Can you imagine just how well ‘Honey, my love for you is like something that turns into graphite in several billion years or could burn in the right conditions’ would go over?

It’s not that God is wrong, he’s taking a little poetic license – which is all well and good and happens in most any story, objectively or subjectively or any of the other kinds of true or not.

As I said earlier, not every oath requires you to put yourself at stake. If you were in court, you’d swear on a bible, not on your body or soul – especially not your soul, that’s a sin last I checked. The bible? That’s just a book, words on paper – words you value, yes, but you could write them down yourself and swear on a bible of your own transcription. If God doesn’t think it necessary to swear on himself and chooses one of his own creations to serve as the object, are you going to stop him?

According to the Bible, we’re not supposed to swear on anything, and American courts very rarely these days maintain the practice of swearing on a Bible (it actually caused quite a stir when someone testifying at the Conrad Black trial was made to swear on a Bible a few days ago, as this is not the norm any longer).

And since Allah’s oaths seem to make sense to you, could you please satisfy my curiosity and explain the reasoning behind some of the more unusual ones in the OP, such as the fig and the olive and the panting runners?

 

[jack_hawkins]

to digress, I won’t swear on a Bible, I only affirm (as I did recently on an affidavit)

 

[Mirdath]

And since Allah’s oaths seem to make sense to you, could you please satisfy my curiosity and explain the reasoning behind some of the more unusual ones in the OP, such as the fig and the olive and the panting runners?

Same thing – poetic license. Scripture is not merely holy text, it is art. Many, such as the Torah, the Avesta, or the Vedas, come down through oral traditions that were subtly changed and beautified by each successive teller. The Quran and the New Testament are not part of this group; however, that does not discount their beauty either. A message is more able to attract attention when it is well-presented, even if there are few to shape it before it becomes canon.

See how even among Christians, there is considerable debate over which versions of the Bible are ‘best’ – not just in accuracy but in presentation. Take the Douay-Rheims, for instance: that’s art. Then look at ‘The Message’ version. It’s hideous, awkward and stilted. It may have the teachings (and there are criticisms even on that score), but it utterly fails at presenting them well.

 

[Morning_Star15]

Same thing – poetic license. Scripture is not merely holy text, it is art. Many, such as the Torah, the Avesta, or the Vedas, come down through oral traditions that were subtly changed and beautified by each successive teller. The Quran and the New Testament are not part of this group; however, that does not discount their beauty either. A message is more able to attract attention when it is well-presented, even if there are few to shape it before it becomes canon.

See how even among Christians, there is considerable debate over which versions of the Bible are ‘best’ – not just in accuracy but in presentation. Take the Douay-Rheims, for instance: that’s art. Then look at ‘The Message’ version. It’s hideous, awkward and stilted. It may have the teachings (and there are criticisms even on that score), but it utterly fails at presenting them well.

Yes, but I was asking about the meaning of the oaths, not whether they were poetic or not. There are many beautiful things said in the Bible, but they’re not there just for the sake of beauty or art, but to convey a certain message, and they all have a certain meaning. So if Allah isn’t literally swearing on figs and olives, then what is the “poetic” meaning of this oath? What does it symbolize?

 

[Mirdath]

Yes, but I was asking about the meaning of the oaths, not whether they were poetic or not. There are many beautiful things said in the Bible, but they’re not there just for the sake of beauty or art, but to convey a certain message, and they all have a certain meaning. So if Allah isn’t literally swearing on figs and olives, then what is the “poetic” meaning of this oath? What does it symbolize?

That I don’t know for sure – it seems more a matter of cultural context which I lack entirely, not being a 7th-century Arab or a dedicated scholar of the period.

However, I’d note that the verses concerning the fig, the olive, the mount, and the city are swearing to the fallen state of humanity. All are united first by being part of God’s creation, and second by their transience.

 

[eliasaph99]

Same thing – poetic license. Scripture is not merely holy text, it is art. Many, such as the Torah, the Avesta, or the Vedas, come down through oral traditions that were subtly changed and beautified by each successive teller. The Quran and the New Testament are not part of this group; however, that does not discount their beauty either. A message is more able to attract attention when it is well-presented, even if there are few to shape it before it becomes canon.

See how even among Christians, there is considerable debate over which versions of the Bible are ‘best’ – not just in accuracy but in presentation. Take the Douay-Rheims, for instance: that’s art. Then look at ‘The Message’ version. It’s hideous, awkward and stilted. It may have the teachings (and there are criticisms even on that score), but it utterly fails at presenting them well.

Scripture is not art. It is communication.

Within scripture, there are some beautifully phrased passages, and some amazing imagery, but overall, I would hardly call it a work of art.

To rebut what you have said above, I will say unequivocally that the Torah is not beautiful. It is amazing. It is meaningful, and it’s breadth is impressive, but it is not beautiful.

It is a book of history and a book of law as communicated by God to Moses. There is no attempt at beauty in it. If you doubt me, just go try to slog your way through Leviticus. Or you could try to explain the poetic beauty to me of monotously listing the descendants of individuals.

…begat…, …begat…, …begat…

Or how about the listing of the census in Numbers. I know that when I want to read something truly beautiful, I go the US Census Bureau webpage. It’s riveting!

 

[Morning_Star15]

That I don’t know for sure – it seems more a matter of cultural context which I lack entirely, not being a 7th-century Arab or a dedicated scholar of the period.

However, I’d note that the verses concerning the fig, the olive, the mount, and the city are swearing to the fallen state of humanity. All are united first by being part of God’s creation, and second by their transience.

So what you’re basically saying is that you’re assuming it’s poetic, not literal, even though you don’t know what its poetic meaning is. By that logic, anything can be said to be poetic, because beauty and poeticism can be found in anything if one looks hard enough for it. Sorry, I’m still not convinced that Allah’s oaths are simply meant to show His poetic abilities.

 

[inJESUS]

So the God of the Bible who swore only by Himself became the Allah who swears by things lesser than him for poetic reasons? what a regression
and when Muslims cry out that Allah is above his creation , especially humans, yet we see him swear by muhammad so is creation a humiliation to Allah (as they say when we say He took a human form), or is it something perfect for him to swear by?

 

[paarsurrey]

Al-lah swears it! You don’t believe him, look then, he swears to things (which are less than he)
[74.32] Nay; I swear by the moon,
[74.33] And the night when it departs,
[74.34] And the daybreak when it shines;

Hi
I quote a passage from the PromisedMessiahImamMahdi 1835-1908, I think it would satisfy you if you are a reasonable person:
alislam.org/books/philosophy/4q2.html
The Philosophy of the Oaths of the Holy Quran
There is a deep philosophy in God’s calling the sun and the moon etc. To witness. Some of our opponents, out of their lack of knowledge, criticise God for calling to witness created things. As their intelligence is earthly and not heavenly they fail to appreciate true insights. The purpose of taking an oath is that the one who takes an oath puts forward a testimony in support of his claim. A person who has no witness of his claim calls God to witness, for He knows what is hidden and He is the foremost witness in every controversy. Such a person puts forward the testimony of God by taking an oath in His name, meaning thereby that if God does not thereafter chastise him, that would be proof that God has confirmed the truth of his claim.

It is, therefore, not permissible for a person to take the oath of any created thing, for no created thing possesses knowledge of the unseen, nor has it the power to punish one who takes a false oath. In these verses God calling various phenomena to witness is not the same thing as a person taking an oath. Divine manifestations are of two types. One, those that are obvious and concerning which there is no controversy. Secondly, there are those Divine manifestations which are inferential concerning which people differ and can fall into error. By calling to witness the obvious phenomena God Almighty’s purpose is to establish by their evidence His inferential manifestations. It is obvious that the sun and the moon and the day and the night and the heaven and the earth, possess the respective characteristics that we have mentioned, but everyone is not aware of the characteristics possessed by the human soul. Thus, God has set forth His obvious manifestations as witnesses for the purpose of explaining His inferential manifestations. It is as if He says: if you are in doubt with regard to the qualities with which the human soul is invested, then reflect upon the sun and the moon and the other phenomena cited which obviously possess these qualities. You know that man is a microcosm that comprises a tiny representation of the pattern of the universe. As it is clear that the great bodies of the macrocosm possess these qualities and provide benefits for God’s creatures, then how can man, who ranks above all those bodies, be without those qualities? That is not so. Indeed, like the sun man possesses the light of knowledge and reason whereby he can illumine the world. Like the moon he receives the light of vision and revelation from the Divine and conveys it to others who have not yet arrived at the highest stage of human progress. Then how can you say that prophethood is a false notion and that all prophethoods and purported Divine laws and books are only the imposture and selfishness of certain human beings. You observe how all paths are lit up and the heights and depressions become distinct when the day dawns. In the same way perfect man is the day of spiritual light, by his advent every path becomes clearly distinguishable. He points out the right path, for he himself is the bright day of truth and righteousness. Similarly, you observe how the night accommodates the weary and how the labourers, after working hard during the day, sleep in the gracious lap of the night and rest from their labours. The night also covers up all defects and imperfections. In the same way, the perfect servants of God come to provide comfort for people and the recipients of revelation relieve all wise people of extreme effort. Through them great problems of insight are easily resolved. Also Divine revelation covers up the defects of human reason and, like the night, does not let its faults to become known, inasmuch as wise people correct their mistakes on their own in the light of revelation, and thus through the blessings of God’s holy revelation save themselves from being exposed.
Unquote
I have given two passages from 5/6 pages, if you are really interested then please access the article and enjoy.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

 

[tawheedah]

Al-lah swears it! You don’t believe him, look then, he swears to things (which are less than he)
… classic circular reasoning

Which translation did you take this from? Shakir? Even Pickthal would be better. By the way, the Quran was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) by the angel Gibreel (Gabriel).

In the Yusef Ali translation it says:

74.32 Nay, verily: By the Moon
74.33 And by the Night as it retreateth
74.34 And by the Dawn as it shineth forth,-
(Also it helps if you put the context in which it was talking about, but of course you wouldn’t do that)
74.35 This is but one of the mighty (portents),
74.36 A warning to mankind,-
74.37 To any of you that chooses to press forward, or to follow behind;-
74.38 Every soul will be (held) in pledge for its deeds.

70.40 Now I do call to witness the Lord of all points in the East and the West that We can certainly-
(this Lord of all points in the East and the West IS Allah)

75.1 I do call to witness the Resurrection Day;
75.2 And I do call to witness the self-reproaching spirit: (Eschew Evil).

37.1 By those who range themselves in ranks
37.2 And so are strong in repelling (evil),
37.3 And thus proclaim the Message (of Allah)!
37.4 Verily, verily, your Allah is one!-
37.5 Lord of the heavens and of the earth and all between them, and Lord of every point at the rising of the sun!

51.1 By the (Winds) that scatter broadcast;
51.2 And those that lift and bear away heavy weights;
51.3 And those that flow with ease and gentleness;
51.4 And those that distribute and apportion by Command;-
51.5 Verily that which ye are promised is true;
51.6 And verily Judgment and Justice must indeed come to pass.
51.7 By the Sky with (its) numerous Paths,
51.8 Truly ye are in a doctrine discordant,
51.9 Through which are deluded (away from the Truth) such as would be deluded.

52.1 By the Mount (of Revelation);
52.2 By a Decree inscribed
52.3 In a Scroll unfolded;

53.1 By the Star when it goes down,-
53.2 Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled.
53.4 Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire.

56.75 Furthermore I call to witness the setting of the Stars,-
56.76 And that is indeed a mighty adjuration if ye but knew,-
56.77 That this is indeed a qur’an Most Honourable,
56.78 In Book well-guarded,
56.79 Which none shall touch but those who are clean:
56.80 A Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds.

68.1 Nun. By the Pen and the (Record) which (men) write,-
68.2 Thou art not, by the Grace of thy Lord, mad or possessed.

69.38 So I do call to witness what ye see,
69.39 And what ye see not,
69.40 That this is verily the word of an honoured messenger;
69.41 It is not the word of a poet: little it is ye believe!

77.1 By the (Winds) sent forth one after another (to man’s profit);
77.2 Which then blow violently in tempestuous Gusts,
77.3 And scatter (things) far and wide;
77.4 Then separate them, one from another,
77.5 Then spread abroad a Message,
77.6 Whether of Justification or of Warning;-
77.7 Assuredly, what ye are promised must come to pass.

79.1 By the (angels) who tear out (the souls of the wicked) with violence;
79.2 By those who gently draw out (the souls of the blessed);
79.3 And by those who glide along (on errands of mercy),
79.4 Then press forward as in a race,
79.5 Then arrange to do (the Commands of their Lord),
79.6 One Day everything that can be in commotion will be in violent commotion,

81.15 So verily I call to witness the planets - that recede,
81.16 Go straight, or hide;
81.17 And the Night as it dissipates;
81.18 And the Dawn as it breathes away the darkness;-
81.19 Verily this is the word of a most honourable Messenger,

84.16 So I do call to witness the ruddy glow of Sunset;
84.17 The Night and its Homing;
84.18 And the Moon in her fullness:
84.19 Ye shall surely travel from stage to stage.

85.1 By the sky, (displaying) the Zodiacal Signs;
85.2 By the promised Day (of Judgment);
85.3 By one that witnesses, and the subject of the witness;-
85.4 Woe to the makers of the pit (of fire),

 

[tawheedah]

86.1 By the Sky and the Night-Visitant (therein);-
86.2 And what will explain to thee what the Night-Visitant is?-
86.3 (It is) the Star of piercing brightness;-
86.4 There is no soul but has a protector over it.
86.5 Now let man but think from what he is created!
86.6 He is created from a drop emitted-
86.7 Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
86.8 Surely (Allah) is able to bring him back (to life)!
86.9 The Day that (all) things secret will be tested,
86.10 Man) will have no power, and no helper.
86.11 By the Firmament which returns (in its round),
86.12 And by the Earth which opens out (for the gushing of springs or the sprouting of vegetation),-
86.13 Behold this is the Word that distinguishes (Good from Evil):
86.14 It is not a thing for amusement.

89.1 By the break of Day
89.2 By the Nights twice five;
89.3 By the even and odd (contrasted);
89.4 And by the Night when it passeth away;-
89.5 Is there (not) in these an adjuration (or evidence) for those who understand?

90.1 I do call to witness this City;-
90.2 And thou art a freeman of this City;-
90.3 And (the mystic ties of) parent and child;-
90.4 Verily We have created man into toil and struggle.

91.1 By the Sun and his (glorious) splendour;
91.2 By the Moon as she follows him;
91.3 By the Day as it shows up (the Sun’s) glory;
91.4 By the Night as it conceals it;
91.5 By the Firmament and its (wonderful) structure;
91.6 By the Earth and its (wide) expanse:
91.7 By the Soul, and the proportion and order given to it;
91.8 And its enlightenment as to its wrong and its right;-
91.9 Truly he succeeds that purifies it,
91.10 And he fails that corrupts it!

92.1 By the Night as it conceals (the light);
92.2 By the Day as it appears in glory;
92.3 By (the mystery of) the creation of male and female;-
92.4 Verily, (the ends) ye strive for are diverse.

93.1 By the Glorious Morning Light,
93.2 And by the Night when it is still,-
93.4 Thy Guardian-Lord hath not forsaken thee, nor is He displeased.

95.1 By the Fig and the Olive,
95.2 And the Mount of Sinai,
95.3 And this City of security,-
95.4 We have indeed created man in the best of moulds,

100.1 By the (Steeds) that run, with panting (breath),
100.2 And strike sparks of fire,
100.3 And push home the charge in the morning,
100.4 And raise the dust in clouds the while,
100.5 And penetrate forthwith into the midst (of the foe) en masse;-
100.6 Truly man is, to his Lord, ungrateful;

103.1 By (the Token of) Time (through the ages),
103.2 Verily Man is in loss,
103.3 Except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy.

36.2 By the Qur’an, full of Wisdom,-
36.3 Thou art indeed one of the messengers,
36.4 On a Straight Way.

38.1 Sad: By the Qur’an, Full of Admonition: (This is the Truth).

43.2 By the Book that makes things clear,-
43.3 We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom).

44.2 By the Book that makes things clear;-
44.3 We sent it down during a Blessed Night: for We (ever) wish to warn (against Evil).

50.1 Qaf: By the Glorious Qur’an (Thou art Allah’s Messenger).

 

[Verisimilitude]

However, Montalban got the context wrong. In Quran 70, Mohammed is the speaker, not Allah; and the prophet is calling upon God to back him up.

I do not believe that is accurate, the god allah is always the speaker in the Koran unless specificaly stated otherwise, but understood that the revelations come from god, to the spirit they think is Gabriel, to Muhammed thus to the people through mohammed.

70:39 No, that is not like that! Verily, We have created them out of that which they know!
40 So I swear by the Lord of all (the three hundred and sixty (360)) points of sunrise and sunset in the east and the west that surely We are Able
41 To replace them by (others) better than them; and We are not to be outrun.

That is attributed to allah speaking.

Mohammed is considered the last prophet, Jesus being next-to-last. Islam considers neither to be divine or a messiah.

They do think Jesus is messiah, they just think Muhammed was more worthy of honor than Jesus.

The messiah (Iesa (Jesus)), son of Maryam (Mary), was no more than a Messenger; …deluded away (from the truth).
( سورة المائدة , Al-Maeda, Chapter #5, Verse #75)

O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The messiah Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, …of affairs.
( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #171)

They (Jews and Christians) …and (they also took as their Lord) messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded (in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) to worship none but One Ilah (God - Allah) La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)."
( سورة التوبة , At-Taubah, Chapter #9, Verse #31)

(Remember) when the angels said: “O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word (“Be!” - and he was! i.e. Iesa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary)) from Him, his name will be the Messiah Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah.”
( سورة آل عمران , Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #45)

And (remember) when Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah unto you confirming the Taurat ((Torah) which came) before me, and giving glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed . But when he (Ahmed i.e. Muhammad SAW) came to them with clear proofs, they said: “This is plain magic.”
( سورة الصف , As-Saff, Chapter #61, Verse #6)

 

[Mirdath]

I do not believe that is accurate, the god allah is always the speaker in the Koran unless specificaly stated otherwise, but understood that the revelations come from god, to the spirit they think is Gabriel, to Muhammed thus to the people through mohammed.

I know I got it wrong. I retracted on the second page