Contradict in the Qur'an

[tobinatorstark]

When We ordered the angels: “Prostrate before Adam in respect,” they all prostrated
except Iblees (Satan) who refused in his arrogance and became a disbeliever.[34] To
Adam We said: “Dwell with your wife in Paradise and eat anything you want from its
bountiful food from wherever you wish, but do not approach this tree, or you shall
both become transgressors.”[35] 2:[34-35]

If Muslims believe in one God then who is this We in this Qur’an passage? Allah and Muhammad??? Why would God require angels to prostrate before a human when God is superior? In respect of what? Again who is the We in 34?? Approach??? How much distance did they have to remain away from the tree?? just become transgressors??? Then why did death eventually fall on them if they just became transgressors???

 

[athair_siochain]

When We ordered the angels: “Prostrate before Adam in respect,” they all prostrated
except Iblees (Satan) who refused in his arrogance and became a disbeliever.[34] To
Adam We said: “Dwell with your wife in Paradise and eat anything you want from its
bountiful food from wherever you wish, but do not approach this tree, or you shall
both become transgressors.”[35] 2:[34-35]

If Muslims believe in one God then who is this We in this Qur’an passage? Allah and Muhammad??? Why would God require angels to prostrate before a human when God is superior? In respect of what? Again who is the We in 34?? Approach??? How much distance did they have to remain away from the tree?? just become transgressors??? Then why did death eventually fall on them if they just became transgressors???

How much distance did they have to keep away from the tree, was this tree a Mangotree, having read "TheMangotreeRevisited " I understand the power always is in the hands of the people from the top end of town,

 

[Sister_Amy]

When We ordered the angels: “Prostrate before Adam in respect,” they all prostrated
except Iblees (Satan) who refused in his arrogance and became a disbeliever.[34] To
Adam We said: “Dwell with your wife in Paradise and eat anything you want from its
bountiful food from wherever you wish, but do not approach this tree, or you shall
both become transgressors.”[35] 2:[34-35]

If Muslims believe in one God then who is this We in this Qur’an passage? Allah and Muhammad???

No. Muhammad was a human being, created by Allah. The “We” is the “royal we” used to denote majesty. Allah often uses the first person plural pronouns, as well as the first person singular pronouns, when speaking in the Qur’an.

Why would God require angels to prostrate before a human when God is superior? In respect of what?

When God commands you to bow, you bow. You don’t ask, “Why?” But by following God’s command, you are obeying God, and therefore worshipping God.

Again who is the We in 34??

Once again, it is Allah using the royal plural.

Approach??? How much distance did they have to remain away from the tree?? just become transgressors???

This question makes me smile.

Then why did death eventually fall on them if they just became transgressors???

Death? They disobeyed the command of Allah–that is what it means to say they were “transgressors.” In other words, sinners. They sinned, they were punished. They repented, and God forgave them.

 

[tobinatorstark]

How much distance did they have to keep away from the tree, was this tree a Mangotree, having read "TheMangotreeRevisited " I understand the power always is in the hands of the people from the top end of town,

How can one be sure that it was a Mango tree, when the Bible state tree of knowledge of good and evil Genesis 2:17 and in Genesis 3 it is just mentioned as fruit. Was this book Catholic???

 

[ralphinal]

Sister Amy,
This question may be beyond what you know, and if so, I do not mean to put you on the spot. In most places, the use of the Royal we occured only after the understanding of the nation-state and then the indentification of the ruler as the manifestation of the nation-state. At the time of Moses in the Bible, for example, Pharoah was seen as a god, not as the face of Egypt. Did the Arabian Penninsula have an understanding of the royal we that long ago?

It seems strange to me that a primarily tribal culture would have developed grammtical usage that no one else at that level of development had.

 

[tobinatorstark]

No. Muhammad was a human being, created by Allah. The “We” is the “royal we” used to denote majesty. Allah often uses the first person plural pronouns, as well as the first person singular pronouns, when speaking in the Qur’an.

When God commands you to bow, you bow. You don’t ask, “Why?” But by following God’s command, you are obeying God, and therefore worshipping God.

Once again, it is Allah using the royal plural.

This question makes me smile.

Death? They disobeyed the command of Allah–that is what it means to say they were “transgressors.” In other words, sinners. They sinned, they were punished. They repented, and God forgave them.

Ok I understand the We in these passages. But why would God allow prostration to human, when it considered Idolatry to bow before anything other than the creator, whom all good things come from. I can see God command someone to bow before God, but a sinner. You still haven’t answered my question on how much distance from this tree Adam and Eve were to remain from being sinners??? There are differences in approaching an tree and eating from the tree

 

[tobinatorstark]

Sister Amy,
This question may be beyond what you know, and if so, I do not mean to put you on the spot. In most places, the use of the Royal we occured only after the understanding of the nation-state and then the indentification of the ruler as the manifestation of the nation-state. At the time of Moses in the Bible, for example, Pharoah was seen as a god, not as the face of Egypt. Did the Arabian Penninsula have an understanding of the royal we that long ago?

It seems strange to me that a primarily tribal culture would have developed grammtical usage that no one else at that level of development had.

Sister Amy doesn’t accept the Bible to be truthful or of any relavance.

 

[ralphinal]

Sister Amy doesn’t accept the Bible to be truthful or of any relavance.

It does not matter. I was using an example of a time when there was no royal we as it is understood.

I could just as well have said in the court of the emperor of Japan.

Royal we, as a word usage, did not exist when the ruler was seen as a god.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Ok I understand the We in these passages. But why would God allow prostration to human, when it considered Idolatry to bow before anything other than the creator, whom all things come from. I can see God command someone to bow before God, but a sinner. You still haven’t answered my question on how much distance from this tree Adam and Eve were to remain from being sinners??? There are differences in approaching an tree and eating from the tree

First of all, if God tells you to bow, you bow. You are obeying God in that instance, which is not idolatry. If God tells you to prostrate, you prostrate, even if it is to something else. Why God commanded the angels (and Iblees) to prostrate to Adam? I don’t know why, but it can’t possibly be idolatry since they were commanded specifically to prostrate to Adam, making it an act of obedience to God, and therefore worship only of God.

And about your other question, I know I didn’t answer it, and I don’t really have an answer. I also don’t have access to an Arabic translation or anything more helpful to try and explain what it means to “approach” the tree. Does it mean don’t eat the fruit? Don’t sit under the shade? I don’t know exactly, which is my shortcoming and I’m sorry I can’t give you a better answer.

What your question reminded me of, however, was a story in the Qur’an about the Israelites who were told to slaughter a cow. And they kept asking questions about it (how old, what color, etc) and really they were making it harder on themselves. Some Muslims do this today, too. And ultimately it means they are missing the point.

Sorry I can’t answer how near of an “approach” would be transgression.

 

[ralphinal]

From what I know about Islam, which is not much, the issue of approach would be one of intent. If you went near the tree because of something else, it might not be the problem. If you went to the tree TO go to the tree, or because you wanted to see what the deal was, it would be an issue.

Is that a fair statement, Sister Amy?

 

[tobinatorstark]

First of all, if God tells you to bow, you bow. You are obeying God in that instance, which is not idolatry. If God tells you to prostrate, you prostrate, even if it is to something else. Why God commanded the angels (and Iblees) to prostrate to Adam? I don’t know why, but it can’t possibly be idolatry since they were commanded specifically to prostrate to Adam, making it an act of obedience to God, and therefore worship only of God.

And about your other question, I know I didn’t answer it, and I don’t really have an answer. I also don’t have access to an Arabic translation or anything more helpful to try and explain what it means to “approach” the tree. Does it mean don’t eat the fruit? Don’t sit under the shade? I don’t know exactly, which is my shortcoming and I’m sorry I can’t give you a better answer.

What your question reminded me of, however, was a story in the Qur’an about the Israelites who were told to slaughter a cow. And they kept asking questions about it (how old, what color, etc) and really they were making it harder on themselves. Some Muslims do this today, too. And ultimately it means they are missing the point.

Sorry I can’t answer how near of an “approach” would be transgression.

These questions should be easy to answer if your read the Qur’an all the time. I drew my question from that story. Again if you read the Qur’an all the time you would have picked that up when I quoted the passages.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Sister Amy,
This question may be beyond what you know, and if so, I do not mean to put you on the spot. In most places, the use of the Royal we occured only after the understanding of the nation-state and then the indentification of the ruler as the manifestation of the nation-state. At the time of Moses in the Bible, for example, Pharoah was seen as a god, not as the face of Egypt. Did the Arabian Penninsula have an understanding of the royal we that long ago?

It seems strange to me that a primarily tribal culture would have developed grammtical usage that no one else at that level of development had.

This is a fascinating question about linguistic roots of the Arabic language. Unfortunately… I’m a poor person to talk about it.

Just a few things to keep in mind–the Hebrew language and the Arabic language are sisters, they are so close grammatically and even in the construction of words. Because the two are so nearly parallel, it would be very strange to find a construct in one but not the other. And recall that the time of Moses, and even the time of David, was many many centuries before Muhammad.

So most likely the Arabic language did have the royal we. Even at the time of Muhammad the society was tribal but not exclusively nomadic. They were well-familiar with the “nation-state” idea as you put it, as many surrounding societies had monarchies and the like.

That’s just my thoughts, though. I’ll re-iterate that I don’t know much about the linguistic roots of Arabic or Hebrew.

 

[Sister_Amy]

From what I know about Islam, which is not much, the issue of approach would be one of intent. If you went near the tree because of something else, it might not be the problem. If you went to the tree TO go to the tree, or because you wanted to see what the deal was, it would be an issue.

Is that a fair statement, Sister Amy?

I think that’s fair.

 

[Sister_Amy]

These questions should be easy to answer if your read the Qur’an all the time. I drew my question from that story. Again if you read the Qur’an all the time you would have picked that up when I quoted the passages.

Picked what up? The story you’re quoting appears in the Qur’an like 5 times or more, sometimes slightly different. I’m not sure what point you’re making. It never occurred to me to ask how near. Like Ralph mentioned above, going near with intention as opposed to idly walking around seems almost implied.

 

[athair_siochain]

How can one be sure that it was a Mango tree, when the Bible state tree of knowledge of good and evil Genesis 2:17 and in Genesis 3 it is just mentioned as fruit. Was this book Catholic???

SO HOW CAN YOU BE SURE there was a garden of Eden was it just a myth, that story surfaced around the time of King Solomon a man with 700 wives, this man would not have had time to speak with God. if his wives were to be satisfied, making sex a sin, protected Solomon from those who might steal his wives,

 

[ralphinal]

This is a fascinating question about linguistic roots of the Arabic language. Unfortunately… I’m a poor person to talk about it.

Just a few things to keep in mind–the Hebrew language and the Arabic language are sisters, they are so close grammatically and even in the construction of words. Because the two are so nearly parallel, it would be very strange to find a construct in one but not the other. And recall that the time of Moses, and even the time of David, was many many centuries before Muhammad.

So most likely the Arabic language did have the royal we. Even at the time of Muhammad the society was tribal but not exclusively nomadic. They were well-familiar with the “nation-state” idea as you put it, as many surrounding societies had monarchies and the like.

That’s just my thoughts, though. I’ll re-iterate that I don’t know much about the linguistic roots of Arabic or Hebrew.

I don’t really know as much about them either, but i do know that the concept of king as nation did not exist until the middle ages. Before that, the typical idea was king as god. Now, the Hebrew people would not have had that idea (time of David), but that does not mean that they used the royal we (saw king as nation).

the idea of a nation state is more than just having a monarchy, or even cities. It comes from an understanding of many socio-political factors, some of which I cannot recall right now. It is possible that the people in the areas that Muhammed lived had some form of it, but that is no assurance that they used the royal we.

This would be a boring but interesting topic to look at, if that makes sense.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I don’t really know as much about them either, but i do know that the concept of king as nation did not exist until the middle ages. Before that, the typical idea was king as god. Now, the Hebrew people would not have had that idea (time of David), but that does not mean that they used the royal we (saw king as nation).

the idea of a nation state is more than just having a monarchy, or even cities. It comes from an understanding of many socio-political factors, some of which I cannot recall right now. It is possible that the people in the areas that Muhammed lived had some form of it, but that is no assurance that they used the royal we.

This would be a boring but interesting topic to look at, if that makes sense.

I agree it would be interesting. I have been under the impression, however, that the royal we is also used in the Hebrew scriptures. Do you know anything about that? Perhaps we can ask a rabbi or student of the Torah about that?

 

[tobinatorstark]

SO HOW CAN YOU BE SURE there was a garden of Eden was it just a myth, that story surfaced around the time of King Solomon a man with 700 wives, this man would not have had time to speak with God. if his wives were to be satisfied, making sex a sin, protected Solomon from those who might steal his wives,

The Garden of Eden did exist. It still exists. It is paradise and not a physical location on the map. I believe the Bible to be completely literal and that the parables that Christ told in the Gospels were allegorical, but that Christ literally told them.

 

[ralphinal]

I agree it would be interesting. I have been under the impression, however, that the royal we is also used in the Hebrew scriptures. Do you know anything about that? Perhaps we can ask a rabbi or student of the Torah about that?

The most obvious verses where that may be the case are in Genesis, where God says “let US make man in OUR image.” AS much as that is the same as the Qur’an usage (not the story, but the way the word is used), that was written by Moses (according to tradition) who came from an era of Pharoah as god and no concept at all of the royal we.

It is typically said to be that by Jewish folks. Christians say that it is proof of the Trinity.

Another explination of it is that God was speaking to the angels. Natually, the issue with that is how are we in the image of angels and why does he need to tell them what he is doing, anyway.

 

[jakasaki]

This is how one Islamic scholar explains the “we” in the Koran:

Allah as WE in the Qur’an - by Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi

Whenever in the Qur’an God is mentioned in the third person there are always singular pronouns used, such as He, him (Huwa or Hu).

Whenever God is spoken to in the second person there are also singular pronouns, such as You (Anta, Ka). However only in the first person some times the pronouns I, My or Mine (Ana, Iyaya, ya) are used and sometimes We, Us and Our (Nahnu, Na) are used.

This is a style of speech.

Sometime the speaker says I and sometime says we. We also use that in our conversations. In the Qur’an you will see that often the first person singular such as I or My is used, when God speaks about His love, care and closeness and forgiveness for His servants.

In a similar way the first person plural is often used when God speaks about His power, majesty, glory, great deeds or when He speaks about His anger and wrath for the sinners and criminals. (This is, of course, the general use. Sometime the reverse is also the case, depending on the context of the Surah.)

The information I posted came from the following internet search. I hope it helps this debate/thread:

thelastingmiracle.com/eng/article.aspx?id=105&cat=14

Best Regards and May God Bless Us, Everyone!
Pam
New York