Reply to Natalia (part 3)paving the way for Tight Spot 1
Dear Natalia
Sal?mû Allah A’layk? Wa Rahmatan Minhû Wa Barak?t
I brought to your attention in part 2 of these composite replies five antithetic assertions, that don’t seem to square right, with our Innate intuitive understanding that; the interpretation or explanation of scriptures should be at the outset;
- either self evident, or
- explained by other clear passages in the Bible itself, and if not,
- be explained by some trustworthy verifiable traditional probative material.
Straightforward as this three hermeneutic rules are, one is shocked to discover, that not only all the 5 assertions fail to pass this logical acid test, but that renown philosophizing theologians; Jewish, Christians as well as Muslims , did not even pucker their brows, while defending exactly the wrong opposite view!
And this brings to mind the following nasty no nonsense question;
How in the name of Reason, was this attitude possible, bearing in mind, that it was not a blooper coming from some ignoramus laymen, but the uncompromising stand of renown and respected scholars, who’s respective devout lettered and half lettered followers shout all over the roofs,, and for all to hear, that their masters were the paragons of Reason, and the depository of Rational thinking ?
Before we set ourselves to answer this question, let me bring to your attention first, two remarks to meditate upon;
First; The Karaites, as you may check the statistics for yourself, number today less than 50,000 members worldwide, i.e., they represent a mere vestigial remnant of the past and a historical living museum curiosity, no different from the Papooses of New Guinea, or the native Bushmen of Australia,
Second; They are past their “no return point’, and can’t hope for a future comeback in history, by a mere revival of their credo of Old, i.e., by preaching a return to the Bible alone as a the absolute Judge and depository of ineffable truth, since the books of the Bible themselves were proven beyond the shadows of doubt, to have suffered from; tampering, fudging and losses,…exactly as the Qur’an was the first to announce some 14 centuries ago!
This, no doubt, represents another scoring point for the Qur’an and a flat final blow and rebuke to the claim of the present day living Karaites, saying that they are Reasonable or Rational, in their approach to understanding religion in general and Karaism in particular, since even by being the closest among the Jews to Muslims in every aspect of their creed, their petty sectarianism took the best of them and just continued in the footsteps of their fore fathers {see Surah; “Al-Baqrah” (the Cow), verses 170 and 171;
ÙˆÙØ¥ÙØ°Ùا Ù‚Ùيل٠لÙÙ‡Ùم٠اتّÙبÙعÙوا Ù…Ùا Ø£ÙنزÙل٠اللّÙÙ‡Ù Ù‚ÙالÙواْ بÙلْ Ù†ÙتّÙبÙع٠مÙا Ø£ÙلْÙÙيْنÙا عÙÙ„Ùيْه٠آبÙاءÙÙ†Ùا Ø£ÙÙˆÙÙ„Ùوْ ÙƒÙان٠آبÙاؤÙÙ‡Ùمْ لا٠يÙعْقÙÙ„Ùون٠شÙيْئاً ÙˆÙلا٠يÙهْتÙدÙون٠(170) ÙˆÙÙ…ÙØ«Ùل٠الّÙØ°Ùين٠كÙÙÙرÙواْ ÙƒÙÙ…ÙØ«Ùل٠الّÙØ°ÙÙŠ ÙŠÙنْعÙق٠بÙÙ…Ùا لا٠يÙسْمÙع٠إÙلاّ٠دÙعÙاء ÙˆÙÙ†ÙدÙاء صÙمٌّ بÙكْمٌ عÙمْيٌ ÙÙÙ‡Ùمْ لا٠يÙعْقÙÙ„Ùون٠(171)
170. And when it is said unto them: Follow that which Allah hath revealed, they say: We follow that wherein we found our fathers. What! Even though their fathers were wholly unintelligent and had no guidance?
171. The likeness of those who disbelieve (in relation to the messenger) is as the likeness of one who calleth unto that which heareth naught except a shout and cry. Deaf, dumb, blind, therefore they have no sense.
The more so, if one takes into consideration, the general forewarning of verse 54 in Surah; “Fû??ilat” (Ùصلت);
٠سÙÙ†ÙرÙيهÙمْ آيÙاتÙÙ†Ùا ÙÙÙŠ الآÙÙاق٠وÙÙÙÙŠ Ø£ÙÙ†ÙÙسÙÙ‡Ùمْ ØÙتّÙÙ‰ ÙŠÙتÙبÙيّÙÙ†Ù Ù„ÙÙ‡Ùمْ Ø£ÙنّÙه٠الْØÙقّ٠أÙÙˆÙÙ„Ùمْ ÙŠÙكْÙ٠بÙرÙبّÙك٠أÙنّÙه٠عÙÙ„ÙÙ‰ ÙƒÙلّ٠شÙيْء٠شÙÙ‡Ùيدٌ (53) Ø£Ùلا Ø¥ÙنّÙÙ‡Ùمْ ÙÙÙŠ Ù…ÙرْيÙة٠مّÙÙ† لّÙÙ‚Ùاء رÙبّÙÙ‡Ùمْ Ø£Ùلا Ø¥ÙنّÙه٠بÙÙƒÙلّ٠شÙيْء٠مّÙØÙيطٌ (54) ÙÙ
53. We shall show them Our portents (signs) on the horizons and within themselves until it will be manifest unto them that it is the Truth.
Doth not thy Lord suffice, since He is Witness over all things?
These preliminary points understood, let me now review with you these litigious precedents at length, since they seem to live a life of their own, not unlike the mythic Phoenician’ s phoenix, who comes to life every Spring, out of its ashes!
My avowed intention in bringing to light these precedents, is to subject them to a thorough historical and textual deconstruction, peeling them off of their external doctrinarian’s veneer, so that no novice on intent to discover his or her “ genuine Islam”, like yourself, will be ensnared again by such “fallacies” !
All the more so, since similar simulacra have being staged in the past century, and are still reenacted anew today, with big fanfare and pedantic TV shows, by some contemporary less knowledgeable and even less scholarly Muslim Qaraites, of whom I have shown below, as a prelude and foretaste for things to come, some chosen representatives. They are before I handle them one by one in turn. {from left to right};
The Afghani; Jamal Ud-Din (1838 – 1898), the Iraki; Rashid Reda (1865 – 1935), the Egyptian; Muhammad Abdu (1849 – 1905), the Indian; Ahmad Khan (1817 – 1898) , the controversial Libyan still living; Muammar Qaddafi and the living Swiss over mediated; Tariq Ramadan, and the self proclaimed new messenger the Egyptian; Rashad Khalifa (1935 – 1990)
Suffice to say at the outset, that they all share in one common peculiarity; their complete analphabetism in the science of Hadith, without which, any discourse in Islam is fraught with dangers, as history has shown in the past, and still shows today, as we will discover soon.
This exercise, I trust, will immunize you, as well as any potential seeker of the truth, against the gullibility of believing in things, unless provided by the proofs sustaining them, since you’ll be called yourself sooner or latter, to dispense such proofs for others, who will ask you for such corroborative evidence , as to comply with the obligatory Qur’anic injunction in {Surah; “Al Isr?’ “ (The Night Journey), verse 36}
ÙˆÙلا٠تÙقْÙÙ Ù…Ùا Ù„Ùيْس٠لÙك٠بÙه٠عÙلْمٌ Ø¥Ùنّ٠السّÙمْع٠وÙالْبÙصÙر٠وÙالْÙÙؤÙاد٠كÙلّ٠أÙولـئÙÙƒÙ ÙƒÙان٠عÙنْه٠مÙسْؤÙولاً (36)
36- And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the day of reckoning).
Needless to remind you of the consequences of transgressing this sound precautionary measure, since you have just learned, at your own expenses and perils by now, that failing to comply with this imperative injunction, can shatter your belief at times.
So bear with me for awhile, if I digress from time to time from the main course, since this is not meant to be a hair-splitting exercise in futility on my part, but a necessary ingredient for making these issues once and for all, clear and concise in your mind, as well as in the mind of any new neophyte.
This is the surest course to follow for anyone who wants to build his convictions, not on moving sands, but on firm grounds before proceeding further.
And don’t ever forget, that this safety measure of requiring proofs in matters of beliefs applies too; for whatever religious material you’ll be receiving from me.
In Islam, when it comes to matters of belief, we never put our trust in men (Women), whatever their religious stature or knowledge, since they are all imperfect, frail and fallible, but on proofs and verifiable facts only.
So don’t take any of my assertions for granted or at their face values, but check them for yourself, and make sure they make sense to you, and that they satisfy your enquiring mind and your innate instinct and intelligence, and don’t be ashamed of asking and asking again and again,….. till satisfied.
On Methodology
On another level, I have tried to tailor these composite replies to the best of my abilities, to answer mainly;
- The needs of persons like yourself, bewildered as to whom to turn to, for genuine and reliable advices, when facing perplexing problems or issues, and also;
- The needs of any enquiring mind of monotheist background, be he; Jew, Christian or a neophyte Muslim (issued from these two sister’s Religions),
To this end, I have managed to make use of all the monotheistic textual resources whenever necessary, for two pertinent reasons;
- As you may have certainly experienced yourself, conversion to another faith is a testing experience for any individual concerned, and needless to say that its consequences are immediately felt by the beloved ones first, who depending on their inherited convictions, their educational level, their openness or closeness of mind, …., may react quite differently when confronted with such a happening.
The more so, since Islam is the most talked about subject nowadays in the news, and no doubt the most abused theme too, either on account of some inherited historical stereotypes that are hard to get rid of, or some foolish acts of some immature ignoramus individuals who claim to belong to it.
And whatever the case may be, the sure thing, is that the burden of explaining and/or justifying Islam falls of necessity on the shoulders of the new convert. This is not to be evaded, but confronted objectively, as to drive out the misconceptions about Islam, since it is by genuine exemplary Islamic behavior, that these stereotypes should be fought and eradicated and nothing else.
- Muslims, and specially the educated ones among them, have for centuries neglected to study both; Jewish and Christian Scriptures, notwithstanding the fact that these Sources form, of necessity, part of their common heritage, and thus by not being aware of their content, one leaves the quarters free for the Rabbis and the fathers to convey to their respective coreligionnaires their views and conceptions of things biblical unchallenged!
A deadly oversight, which should be repaired, since it deprives both; Jews and Christian fellows alike, from knowing about Islam, and Muslims from knowing about their brethren’s faith.
A stumbling bloc, which gets in the way of any continuous, fruitful, open and peaceful dialogue, as recommended by the Qur’an {{verse 46 of Surah; “Al-A’nkabût” (the Spider)};
ÙˆÙلا تÙجÙادÙÙ„Ùوا Ø£Ùهْل٠الْكÙتÙاب٠إÙلاّ٠بÙالّÙتÙÙŠ Ù‡Ùي٠أÙØْسÙن٠إÙلاّ٠الّÙØ°Ùين٠ظÙÙ„ÙÙ…Ùوا Ù…ÙنْهÙمْ ÙˆÙÙ‚ÙولÙوا آمÙنّÙا بÙالّÙØ°ÙÙŠ Ø£ÙنزÙل٠إÙÙ„ÙيْنÙا ÙˆÙØ£ÙنزÙل٠إÙÙ„ÙيْكÙمْ ÙˆÙØ¥ÙÙ„ÙÙ‡ÙÙ†Ùا ÙˆÙØ¥ÙÙ„ÙÙ‡ÙÙƒÙمْ ÙˆÙاØÙدٌ ÙˆÙÙ†ÙØْن٠لÙÙ‡Ù Ù…ÙسْلÙÙ…Ùون٠(46)
46- And dispute ye not with the people of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say;
"We believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; our God and your God is One; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)”.
And it is hard to come out with a forceful argument to the contrary.
Thus, on account of these two reasons, and also in order to work your time in the intervening lapses between each part of the reply, try, if your time permits, to translate these replies into Spanish, so as to benefit other Spanish Speaking fellows from them, and spare them the shattering experiencing, you just passed through.
You can conceive of this act as part of your “zakat” (tithe) (زكاة العلم) of knowledge toward your other fellow humans.
Reason! How many foolishness are committed in thy name
I) On the creatdness ! of God’s Words
(the Philo thread)
We found that both; the Muslim Mu’tazilites and the Jewish Karaites sectarians shared in this unfounded dogmatic belief.
A fact which brings forth the following question;
On what scientific non-falsifiable evidence or genuine unquestionable source material, if any, did these two groups base such unfounded conjectural and speculative belief ?
otherwise;
Were {GOD (الله) (????)}’s words pronounced on Mount Horeb in Sinai spoken or created ?
?) The Qur’anic textual evidence
Concerning this litigious point, verse 253 of Surah; An-Nis?’ (women) says;
تÙلْك٠الرّÙسÙÙ„Ù ÙÙضّÙلْنÙا بÙعْضÙÙ‡Ùمْ عÙÙ„ÙÙ‰ بÙعْض٠مّÙنْهÙÙ… مّÙÙ† ÙƒÙلّÙم٠اللّÙÙ‡Ù ÙˆÙرÙÙÙع٠بÙعْضÙÙ‡Ùمْ دÙرÙجÙات٠وÙآتÙيْنÙا عÙيسÙÙ‰ ابْن٠مÙرْيÙم٠الْبÙيّÙÙ†Ùات٠وÙØ£ÙيّÙدْنÙاه٠بÙرÙÙˆØ٠الْقÙدÙسÙ,,,(253)
253- Those Messengers we endowed with gifts, some above others: to one of them Allah spoke; others He raised to degrees (of honors); to Jesus, the son of Mary, We gave Clear (Signs), and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit,….
This one human messenger, to whom God spoke direct is mentioned by name in verse164 in the same Surah;
Ø¥ÙنّÙا Ø£ÙوْØÙيْنÙا Ø¥ÙÙ„Ùيْك٠كÙÙ…Ùا Ø£ÙوْØÙيْنÙا Ø¥ÙÙ„ÙÙ‰ Ù†ÙÙˆØÙ ÙˆÙالنّÙبÙيّÙين٠مÙÙ† بÙعْدÙÙ‡Ù ÙˆÙØ£ÙوْØÙيْنÙا Ø¥ÙÙ„ÙÙ‰ Ø¥ÙبْرÙاهÙيم٠وÙØ¥ÙسْمÙاعÙيل٠وÙإْسْØÙÙ‚Ù ÙˆÙÙŠÙعْقÙوب٠وÙالأÙسْبÙاط٠وÙعÙيسÙÙ‰ ÙˆÙØ£ÙيّÙوب٠وÙÙŠÙونÙس٠وÙÙ‡ÙارÙون٠وÙسÙÙ„ÙيْمÙان٠وÙآتÙيْنÙا دÙاوÙود٠زÙبÙورًا (163) ÙˆÙرÙسÙلاً Ù‚Ùدْ Ù‚ÙصÙصْنÙاهÙمْ عÙÙ„Ùيْك٠مÙÙ† Ù‚Ùبْل٠وÙرÙسÙلاً لّÙمْ Ù†ÙقْصÙصْهÙمْ عÙÙ„Ùيْك٠وÙÙƒÙلّÙم٠اللّÙÙ‡Ù Ù…ÙوسÙÙ‰ تÙكْلÙيمًا (164)
163- We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: We sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma`il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms. 164- Of some messengers We have already told thee the story; of others We have not- and to Moses Allah spoke direct-
Verse 51 of Surah 42. [Ash-Shûr?] “Counsel” gives the setting for such an encounter of the first kind;
ÙˆÙÙ…Ùا ÙƒÙان٠لÙبÙØ´Ùر٠أÙÙ† ÙŠÙÙƒÙلّÙÙ…Ùه٠اللّÙه٠إÙلاّ٠وÙØْيًا Ø£Ùوْ Ù…ÙÙ† ÙˆÙرÙاء ØÙجÙاب٠أÙوْ ÙŠÙرْسÙل٠رÙسÙولاً ÙÙÙŠÙÙˆØÙي٠بÙØ¥ÙذْنÙÙ‡Ù Ù…Ùا ÙŠÙØ´Ùاء Ø¥ÙنّÙه٠عÙÙ„Ùيٌّ ØÙÙƒÙيمٌ (51)
51- It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a Messenger to reveal, with Allah's permission, what Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise.
The event itself is described in verse143 of surah “Al-A’r?f” (الأعراÙ);
ÙˆÙÙ„ÙمّÙا جÙاء Ù…ÙوسÙÙ‰ Ù„ÙÙ…ÙيقÙاتÙÙ†Ùا ÙˆÙÙƒÙلّÙÙ…Ùه٠رÙبّÙÙ‡Ù Ù‚Ùال٠رÙبّ٠أÙرÙÙ†ÙÙŠ Ø¥ÙÙ„Ùيْك٠قÙال٠لÙÙ† تÙرÙانÙÙŠ ÙˆÙÙ„ÙـكÙن٠انظÙرْ Ø¥ÙÙ„ÙÙ‰ الْجÙبÙÙ„Ù ÙÙØ¥Ùن٠اسْتÙÙ‚Ùرّ٠مÙÙƒÙانÙÙ‡Ù ÙÙسÙوْÙ٠تÙرÙانÙÙŠ ÙÙÙ„ÙمّÙا تÙجÙلّÙÙ‰ رÙبّÙÙ‡Ù Ù„ÙلْجÙبÙل٠جÙعÙÙ„Ùه٠دÙكًّا ÙˆÙØ®Ùرّ٠موسÙÙ‰ صÙعÙقًا ÙÙÙ„ÙمّÙا Ø£ÙÙÙاق٠قÙال٠سÙبْØÙانÙك٠تÙبْت٠إÙÙ„Ùيْك٠وÙØ£ÙÙ†Ùاْ Ø£ÙوّÙل٠الْمÙؤْمÙÙ†Ùين٠(143)
143. And when Moses came to Our appointed tryst and his Lord had spoken unto him, he said: My Lord! Show me (Thy self), that I may gaze upon Thee. He said: Thou wilt not see Me, but gaze upon the mountain! If it stand still in its place, then thou wilt see Me. And when his Lord revealed (His) glory to the mountain He sent it crashing down. And Moses fell down senseless. And when he woke he said: Glory unto Thee! I turn unto Thee repentant, and I am the first of (true) believers.
?) The Biblical textual evidence
The event in surah “Al-A’r?f” is reported also in the book of Deuteronomy (4:10-14) where the Prophet Moses addressed the Israelites saying;
The day you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb, when the Lord said to me;
"Gather the people to Me that 1 may let them hear My
words, in order that they may learn to revere Me as long as they live on earth, and may so teach their children."
You came forward and stood at the foot of the mountain. The mountain was ablaze with (flames to the very skies, dark with densest clouds. The Lord spoke to you out of the fire; you heard the sound of words but perceived no shape—nothing but a voice.
He declared to you the Covenant which He commanded you to observe, the Ten Commandments; and He inscribed them on two tablets of stone. At the same time the Lord commanded me to impart to you laws and rules for you to observe in the land which you are about to cross into and occupy.
Now, we can ascertain on the evidence of the Qur’?nic verses cited above, without fear of ever being contradicted, that the historical biblical setting in Deuteronomy (4:10-14), is authentic, i.e., conform with the Proto Original Unaltered Text delivered by God to Moses on Mount Horeb, and did not suffer much from distortion or alteration in its transmission to us.
{see for more details on this confirmatory/ abrogatory power of the Qur’?nic assertions vis-à-vis of the monotheistic Scriptures our article; “Pourquoi l’Islam ?”, in the French section on this site}.
This point made clear, let us now scrutinize how this extraordinary event was interpreted by some tendentious Jewish and Muslim philosophizing theologians alike.
One of the first hasty, slapdashed, hair-splitting and far-fetched interpretation of this text, to have survived the hurdles of history and to reach us intact, is due to the Hellenized Alexandrian Jewish philosopher and expounder; Philo (c.25 BCE-40 CE), who says in his exegesis of that passage;
The ten words or oracles [that is, the Ten Commandments], in
reality laws or ordinances, were revealed by the Father of All when the
nation, men and women alike, were assembled together.
And Philo asks the question;
Did He (GOD) utter them Himself in the guise of a voice?
His answer;
Perish the thought: may it never enter our mind, for God is not a man in need of mouth, tongue and windpipe.
My comment;
But, instead of stopping short at that, as would be expected from any instinct-innate truly rational man, since no analogy can be made between GOD and any of His creations, we found him, on the contrary, embarking without restrain or control on a pseudo kind of an explanation, which is not one, letting loose his unbridled imagination, to speculate about the essence of the “Voice” of God and the mechanics of God’s speech !!!, to wit;
It seems to me rather!!!, that God on that occasion performed a truly holy miracle!!!!, by commanding an invisible sound to be created in the air more marvelous than all the instruments and fitted with perfect harmonies, not inanimate !!!, nor yet composed of body and soul!!!, like a living creature !!!, but a rational soul !!! full of lucidity and clarity, which, shaping the air and heightening its tension and transforming it into a flaming fire, sounded forth, like breath through a trumpet, an articulate voice so great that those farthest away seemed to hear it with the same distinctness as those nearby. . . .
The power of God, breathing on the newly made voice, stirred it up and caused it to blaze forth, and spreading it on every side, rendered its end more luminous than its beginning by inspiring in the soul of each another kind of hearing far superior to that through the ears.
For that sense, being in a way sluggish, remains inert until struck by air and put into motion, but the hearing of the mind inspired by God reaches out to make the first advance to meet the spoken words with the swiftest speed !!!!!!!
Needless to say, that such freewheeling hair-splitting divagations are foreign, not only to the spirit of the text of the Bible, but also to common sense rationality, shared by all humans, since it is part of their constitutive “fitrah” ( الÙطرة) )instinct – Innatress(.
And what can any intelligent person make of his imagined ghostly entity, dubbed nonchalantly; “The Rational Soul”!?
which has no reality of its own whatsoever ?
So one can ask;
Is there anything in this tendentious interpretation that can satisfy, in the names of Reason or Rationality, the mind or the intellect of a believer, or anyone else ?
The contemporary Wikipedia free encyclopedia defines reason as follows;
In theology, reason, as distinguished from faith, is the human intelligence exercised upon religious truth whether by way of discovery or by way of explanation.
The limits within which reason may be used have been laid down differently in different churches and periods of thought!!!.....
Certainly, Philo abused of his Reason here and went far beyond the frontiers of what was given to this Reason to grasp or comprehend!
And it is quite clear, that if one is to make any sense of these pedantic interpretative oddities, he must study first the background of Philo himself and not the Bible!
And knowing that Philo was a confirmed Platonist, it comes as no surprise to find him insisting, basing his speculations on platonic philosophical unsounded grounds, and not on any verified biblical fact, that the identification of the “ most sacred ideas” (Greek; ????????? ?????) and the “ incorporeal images” (Greek; ??????? ????????) was an accomplished fact.
To decode this jargon, one must be aware of two things, mainly;
- that in the belated late Platonism, the “ ideas”, were conceived as “independent entities”, which sooner became to represent “God's thoughts” !, and thus lost their quasi-supremacy in the hierarchy of beings.
- Such conceptual interpretation of; “ Ideas” squared perfectly with the theology of Philon, for whom the “divine Logos” is “God's Verb”, which is rational! to the supreme degree, and represents the sum of the powers and the divine energies, and thus the “ideas” of all things!.
For Philon, the “Divine Logos”; that is the “Verb” or “God’s Speech”, is a sort of a second God!, a God more logically named, to square with his platonic liking; “Image of God", and was created by God!
Needless to say that this pagan polytheistic platonic conception of the “Deity” and its attributes is anathema in Monotheism, and that Philo is to be counted among the polytheists, and not the Unitarian!
The more so, since associating partners to God is an unforgivable sin in Monotheism {verse 48 in Surah; “An-Nis?’ “ (the Women)};
Ø¥Ùنّ٠اللّÙه٠لا٠يÙغْÙÙر٠أÙÙ† ÙŠÙشْرÙك٠بÙÙ‡Ù ÙˆÙÙŠÙغْÙÙر٠مÙا دÙون٠ذÙÙ„ÙÙƒÙ Ù„ÙÙ…ÙÙ† ÙŠÙØ´Ùاء ÙˆÙÙ…ÙÙ† ÙŠÙشْرÙكْ بÙاللّÙÙ‡Ù ÙÙÙ‚Ùد٠اÙْتÙرÙÙ‰ Ø¥Ùثْمًا عÙظÙيمًا (48).
48. Lo! Allah forgives not that a partner should be ascribed unto Him. He forgives (all) save that, to whom He will. Whoso ascribes partners to Allah, he had indeed invented a tremendous sin.
In his work "On the creation of the world", Philo explains that the intelligible “world of the invisible light”. i.e.; the (?????? ??????) is no other that the “Verb of God”, which is the “Divine Image”.
He also calls the “Logos”; “God's first Image”, or the “oldest”, which Philosophizing Muslims will borrow from him later, without even citing him by name, and turn it into Arabic by ( القديم)..
He writes in his book; "Allegories for book 3 of Genesis";
the Logos is the "Shadow of God", which He used as a tool to "create the world", and this Shadow, this Image is the archetype of all things.
And because “God” is the “Model” of the “Image” or the ‘Shadow”, this “Image” becomes the “ model” of everything else.
In this multiplication of the Gods, by mere photocopying of the original, using bad blue prints, the quality of being a “Shadow” of the “Logos of God”, who is at the very heart of the “Divinity”, is the reason inferred for the quality of the "Image" for being the “Entire Cosmos”!
And this Philo’s “Entire Cosmos”, when deconstructed, is no more than the “pantheistic Deity” as arrived at by the pagan Greek philosophers, while making use of their sole freewheeling speculations, as we find for example with Xenophanes, of Colophon (~ 570 B.C. – after 478 B.C ) who ridicules the Greek Pantheon saying;
But men consider that the gods are born, and that they have clothes and speech and bodies like their own!
The Ethiopians say their gods are snub-nosed and black, the Thracians that theirs have blue eyes and red hair!
But if cattle and horses or lions had hands, or were able to draw with their hands and do the works that men can do, horses would draw the forms of the gods like horses, and cattle like cattle, and they would make their bodies such as they each had themselves!
To end up saying;
- One god, greatest among gods and men, in no way similar to mortals either in body or in thought.
And what else about this God ?
- He always remains in the same place, moving not at all; nor is it fitting for him to go to different places at different times, but without toil he shakes all things by the thought of his mind!
Conception, while seemingly Unitarian, and not anthropomorphic suffer nevertheless from pantheism!
But, comparing Xenophane theology, who lived 5 centuries before Philon, and who did not benefit from the teaching of the Bible as did the latter, one is astonished at discovering that the conceptual god of Xenophane, is much closer to the God of Monotheism, than Philo’s Shadows and Images!
But since the books of the Bible, suffered in their transmission, and have been tampered with, it is difficult to decide, based on the sole evidence of existing texts, that have reached us, as to what was really written in the original Torah!
I cite below the biblical textual evidence for two un- decidable issues, either for Philon or for the Patristic fathers.
(I) Biblical Anthropomorphism (II) Condemning iconoclasm
(the making of images)
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, .
GEN 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
GEN 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. EX 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
EX 23:24 Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.:
LEV 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.
DEUT 4:16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
DEUT 4:23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.
DEUT 4:25 When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger:
DEUT 5:8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
DEUT 9:12 And the LORD said unto me, Arise, get thee down quickly from hence; for thy people which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt have corrupted themselves; they are quickly turned aside out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten image.
DEUT 16:22 Neither shalt thou set thee up any image; which the LORD thy God hateth.
DEUT 27:15 Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.
Notice that all texts in column (I) are manifestly anthropomorphic, while the condemnation of Iconoclasm in column (II) is unmistakable.
This mixed evidence brings forth the following remarks
- the anthropological character of the biblical texts in column (I) were not of concern for Philo, in his interpretation of Deuteronomy (4:10-14), since he was not influenced by them, but rather by Xenophane reprimand of such flat and literal crude understanding.
- Philo constitutes, with no shadow of doubt, the bridge that linked the Platonic Pagan Philosophy with the Patristic Christian philosophical thoughts, concerning the concept of "Image" which played a big role in the controversy about “Icons”, which was discussed by 338 bishops in 754 C. E. in the city of “Hiereia” on the Asiatic shores of Bosporus. This council banned Iconoclasm citing for evidence the texts of column (II).
- This ban endured for nearly one quarter of a century, before being overturned by the amending verdict of the Council of Nicea II held in that city in 787. The worship of Icons became legitimate again, notwithstanding the plain injunctions to the contrary, in column (II).
- Another outstanding fact, which is normally passed under the rug, is that Philo’s interpretation of “God’s Image” was decisive and capital, in returning the correct verdict of the 7th Council, by the amending verdict of Nicea II Council!
So, it is legitimate to ask;
Is there any Reasonableness or Rationality in all these pedantic speculations?
The flat answer is; None whatsoever !
(To be continued).
I have used the Hebrew name “????”(Eloh)(God) in its singular form and not in its plural polytheistic form used in the Hebrew ”TANAKH” ( Bible); “?’ ????” (Elohim) (Gods), since this is plain Shirk (association with God) which is an unpardonable sin in Islam.
I will always cite the Qur’anic text in Arabic first followed by its translation in English. One should not forget that every translation from any language to another is a sort of a betrayal to the original, so don’t satisfy yourself with a single translation, since it is a mere understanding of that particular translator!
Philo, 1981; Philo of Alexandria, The contemplative Life, The Giant, and Selections; The Ten Commandments 32—35, p. 156, Translated by David Winston, New York, Paulist Press.
 |
