by AY Mol — Within academic Islamic studies, he became the example of popular scientific interpretation of the. Qur’ān by lending his name to this form as ‘Bucailleism’. 2
19 pages
34 KB – 19 Pages
PAGE – 2 ============
Modern and Classical ScientiÞc Readings of the QurÕ ! n Arnold Mol Introduction Among the trends of Islamic modernism is the propagation of the compatibility or similarity of the meaning of verses of the QurÕ ! n with modern scientific theories and observations of nature and the cosmos. Although this idea of compatibility is also advocated by several classical scholars in their exegesis of the QurÕ ! n, it never had so many proponents and such 1wide popularity among the general Muslim population as it has since the 20th century. Since the early 20th century both classically trained Islamic scholars as Mu %ammad &Abduh (d. 1905) and Mu %ammad Mutawall # al-ShaÔr ! w # (d. 1998), as well as Muslim laity as Sayed 2Abdul Wadud (d. 2001) and Caner Taslaman (b. 1970?) , and even non-Muslims as Maurice 3Bucaille (d. 1998) have written works on the subject. This scientific exegesis, according to 4Abdul-Raof, falls under four typologies of exegesis in order of hierarchy: 1)Rational exegesis ( Tafs ! r bi-lR “Ôy) 2)Linguistic inimitability of the QurÕ ! n (#ij “z al-QurÕ “n) Several Islamic philosophers such as Ibn S # n! (d. 1036) and theologians as al-R ! z # (d. 1209) explained many 1QurÕ ! nic verses by using Greek-Arab natural philosophical thought. This paper will try to show that al-Bay “! w # (d. 1316) has done the same in his non-elaborate exegesis. Hussein Abdul-Raof, Theological Approaches to Qur’anic Exegesis: A practical comparative-contrastive analysis (Abingdon: Routledge, 2012), 60. Mehdi Golshani, The Holy Qur’an and the Sciences of Nature: A Theological Reflection (New York: Global Scholarly Publications, 2003), 136-141. All the dates in this paper are CE unless stated otherwise. On &Abduh (and many more modern writers on this subject not mentioned here), see: Abdul-Raof, ibid , 60-67, 2and: Ignaz Goldziher, Schools of Koranic Commentators: With an Introduction on Goldziher and Hadith from ÔGeschichte Des Arabischen SchrifttumsÕ by Fuat Sezgin, ed. Wolfgang Behn (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz in Kommission, 2006), 204-232 On al-ShaÔr ! w # , see: Mu %ammad Mutawalli ash-Sha &r! w # , The Miracles of the Qur’an , translated by M. 3Alserougii (Istanbul: Dar al-Taqwa, 2009). On Wadud, see below. On Taslaman, see: Caner Taslaman, The Quran: Unchallengeable Miracle , translated by Ender G (Istanbul: Nettleberry/Citlembik, 2006) For a review of Bucaille’s approach, see: Abdul-Raof, ibid , 63-64. Although there are many Muslim websites 4claiming Bucaille became Muslim himself, he never professed as such in his writings or interviews. Although it is logical to believe he did had a sort of faith in the QurÕ ! n, he was skeptical of the historical prophetic traditions (‘ ad # th) and classical practiced and interpretive tradition as such as they “are deemed scientifically unacceptable today”. Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur’an and Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge , translated by Alastair Pannell (Moultan: Darulfikr, 1977), 248. Interestingly enough, although he certainly wasn’t the first to write on this subject (Abdul Wadud, discussed in this paper, published already two English works on the scientific interpretation of the QurÕ ! n years (1971 and 1982) before Bucaille’s original French (1976) and subsequent English and Arabic translations (1986) came out), his work became the most famous among Muslims and non-Muslims probably due to the propaganda funding by the Saudi government. Within academic Islamic studies, he became the example of popular scientific interpretation of the QurÕ ! n by lending his name to this form as ‘Bucailleism’ . 2
PAGE – 3 ============
Modern and Classical ScientiÞc Readings of the QurÕ ! n Arnold Mol 3)Scientific interpretation ( al-TaÕw ! l al- #ilm !) as a form of scientific inimitability ( al- #ij “z al- #ilm !) 4)Thematic ( maw $%#i) non-sequenced exegesis ( ghayri musalsal ) 5He defines scientific exegesis as: ÒScientific exegesis is a form of thematic exegesis approach that is primarily concerned with the scientific aspects of some ! yahs that demonstrate GodÕs omnipotence, on the one hand, and that the two canonical sources of Islam are compatible with the scientific developments 6of our modern age.Ò 7Many proponents of scientific exegesis claim that the QurÕ ! n contains descriptions of nature that are scientifically accurate and which can only be understood correctly with current scientific knowledge, i.e. the true meaning of the these verses was not available to Muslims before the appearance of modern science. I want to test this claim by comparing one such modern proponent’s exegesis, Abdul Wadud (d. 2001), with that of a classical scholar, &Abd All ! h al-Bayd ! w # (d. 1286). Through this I hope to answer the question if modern ‘scientific miracle’ exegesis of the QurÕ ! n really provide new or even better insights to these verses compared to classical rational exegesis. This article tries not to analyze the veracity of modern or classical exegesis, but their concept of the purpose of revelation, epistemology and worldview concerning nature, and how this is applied in their proposed exegesis of certain verses. In an earlier analysis of modern and classical rejections of supernatural sorcery a link is shown between exegesis, revelation, nature and epistemology. In this analysis I came to 8the conclusion that the more one emphasized natural goodness (ethical natural law) the more one emphasizes the stability of that natural order (cosmological natural law). This explains also why some see reason as both an authoritative means and source next to revelation in their construction of Islam, whereby reason also occupied space within the epistemological framework. The ones that de-emphasized natural goodness and order enlarged the revelational presence in the epistemological framework whereby they used secondary revelational and historical sources in their construction of Islam. To emphasize reason thus de-emphasizes 9traditional knowledge. The first group, typically labelled as Ahl al-R “Õy, mainly focused on Abdul-Raof, ibid , 3-4, 29-30, 59-60, 137-142.5 i.e. the QurÕ ! n and Sunnah. 6 Abdul-Raof, ibid , 3. See also 137-138. 7 Arnold Yasin Mol, “The denial of supernatural sorcery in classical and modern Sunni tafs # r of s (rah al-Falaq 8(113:4): a reflection on underlying constructions”, al-Bayan journal of Quran and Hadith studies 11, no. 1 (June 2013), 15-32. The prophetic ‘ ad # th , the opinions of the first generations and founding scholars, but also many mythical and 9legendary stories, especially about the prophets, coming from non-Islamic sources. 3
PAGE – 4 ============
Modern and Classical ScientiÞc Readings of the QurÕ ! n Arnold Mol rational or inner-textual meanings of the QurÕ ! n while the second group, typically labelled as Ahl al-Had ! th , mainly focused on using traditional sources to determine meanings. Both 10Wadud and al-Bay “! w # belong to the ÕAhl al-R “Õy but take different stances within the school. The compared scholars: The intellectual contexts of Wadud and al-Bay !” w # Abdul Wadud Dr. Syed Abdul Wadud (? – 2001) was a Pakistani biochemist who studied under Ghulam Ahmed Parwez (d. 1986), the famous reformist scholar who only accepted the QurÕ ! n as revelation , and was part of his Tolueislam Quranist movement in Pakistan. Wadud himself 11had no formal training in Islamic sciences and can thus be labelled as belonging to the laity. He applied Parwez’s process theology and linguistic exegesis, and believed the QurÕ ! n reflects modern scientific cosmology. Wadud fits within a long line of Indian reformist tradition, starting with Sh ! h Wall # All ! h (d. 1762) who emphasized natural causation in his M ! turid # theology , to Syed Ahmad Khan (d. 1898) who proclaimed that there is no 12disagreement between the QurÕ ! n and the laws of nature , to Muhammad Iqbal (d. 1938) 13who applied Bergsonian ‘creative evolution’ to the QurÕ ! nic worldview , to Ghulam Ahmed 14Parwez who tried to synthesize all these into a Kantian process theology with a Marxist sociology. Wadud has published around 8 smaller and larger works, most of them being 15rewrited English translations of Parwez’s ideas, but the works of scientific exegesis are his own original works as Parwez didn’t write separate works on this. The books discussed here are Gateway to the Quran , Phenomena of Nature and the Quran , and The Heavens, the Earth Their exegesis is mainly labelled as al-Tafs ! r bil-M “Õth %r (traditionally transmitted exegesis) or al-Tafs ! r al- 10Naql ! (textually relayed exegesis), see Abdul-Raof, 10-27. They are typically labelled as ‘Quranists’ or ‘Munkar al- ‘ ad # th’ ( ‘ ad # th deniers), . Ali Usman Qasmi, 11Questioning the Authority of the Past: The Ahl al-Qur’an movements in the Punjab (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 216-286. Sh ! h Wall # All ! h, Hujjah All “h al-B “lighah (India: Maktabah Hij ! z, 2010), 1:68-69. 12 Abdur Raheem Kidwai, ÔSir SyedÕs Tafsir Al-QuranÕ, in Sir Syed Ahmad Khan: A Centenary Tribute , ed. 13Asloob Ansari (New Delhi: Sang-e-Meel Publications, 1998), 74- 78. Damian Howard, Being Human in Islam: The Impact of the Evolutionary Worldview (United States: 14Routledge, 2011), 157- 159. See his magnum opus: Ghulam Ahmed Parwez, Islam: A Challenge to Religion (Lahore: Tolu-e-Islam Trust, 151996). 4
PAGE – 5 ============
Modern and Classical ScientiÞc Readings of the QurÕ ! n Arnold Mol and the Quran . According to Wadud the Óinterpreters of the Quran, who have added 16interpretations to their own translations, have adopted an inappropriate method, to explain the Quranic text, which is of their own making. They have depended mostly on speculations, man-made ideas, legends, Biblical stories and Jewish versions on such subjectsÒ and that the 17Óorthodoxy is averse to exploration of natureÒ. In his earlier Phenomena he does 18acknowledge the existence of Óexcellent works on the interpretations of the Holy QuranÒ, and that even though religious leaders Órejected scienceÒ, Muslim scholars of the early Islamic Era did pursue it. His own pursuit of scientific exegesis is Óto show that the Quran is the book revealed by Allah and is not the outcome of human imagination.Ò Wadud thus presents the 19idea that the majority of the scholars of orthodox Islam is un-or even anti-scientific, i.e. the orthodox do not interpret the QurÕ ! n correctly and have a incorrect worldview, proving thus the veracity of Parwez’s reformist enterprise. This claim is aimed at convincing inner-Muslim discourse towards reform. The second aim of his project is to prove the QurÕ ! n does not have a human origins, thus trying to convince extra-Muslim (i.e. non-Muslim) discourse towards conversion, which has always been the aim of the #ij “z al-QurÕ “n project, but also to prove to his fellow Muslims both the superiority of the QurÕ ! n compared to secondary sources , and 20the veracity of modern science. al-Bay !” w # N !) ir al-D # n &Abd All ! h bin &Umar al-Bayd ! w # (1225? – 1286 or 1293 or 1316) was born in Persia in a family of Ash &ar # Sh ! fi &# scholars, during the time of the Mongolian invasion of the Muslim world. His father was chief judge of Shiraz and after his death al-Bay “! w # took his position. He had written around a dozen works, but is most famous for his QurÕ ! n exegesis, Anw “r al-Tanz ! l wa “sr “r al-T “&w! l, which is a revision of the MuÔtazilite exegesis al-Kash “f #an ‘aq”&iq al-Tanz ! l wa #uy %n al- &Aq “w! l fi wuj %h al-T “&w! l by al-Zamakshar # (d. 1144), and for his Islamic philosophical theology ( #ilm al-Kal “m) work, the ( aw”l #i al-Anw “r min Mat “lÔi al-An )” r. In both works he was also clearly influenced by the philosopher Ibn Gateway to the Quran (Lahore: Khalid Publishers, 1996). Phenomena of Nature and the Quran (Lahore: 16Sayed Khalid Wadud, 1971). The Heavens, the Earth and the Quran (Lahore: Khalid Publishers, 1998). Wadud, Gateway , 2. Here he is clearly mainly referring to the exegesis of the Ahl al- * ad! th , for an overview 17of the myths and legends within this type of exegesis, see: MJ Kister, ÔAd ! m: A Study of Some Legends in Tafs # r and Had # t LiteratureÕ, in Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur +”n, ed. Andrew Rippin (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 113- 162. Ibid, 5. 18 Wadud, Phenomena , 17.19 Proving that only the QurÕ ! n is authentic and divinely revealed, and thus that his Quranism is the only logical 20stance. 5
PAGE – 6 ============
Modern and Classical ScientiÞc Readings of the QurÕ ! n Arnold Mol S # n! (d. 1037) and the theologian and exegete Fakhr al-D # n al-R ! z # (d. 1209) on issues of theology and the philosophy of nature. As his exegesis is a revision of al-Zamakhshar # ‘s 21work, it automatically belongs to the Tafs ! r al-R “Õy genre as it applies philosophical theology and metaphorical interpretations, but he also adds much original commentary incorporating natural philosophy and Us (l al-Fiqh concepts of public interest ( Ma,” li ‘). al-Zamakhshar # ‘s 22is mainly popular for its excellence in showing the linguistic inimitability of the QurÕ ! n, thus al-Zamakhshar # ‘s and al-Bay “! w # ‘s revision both also belong to the #ij “z al-QurÕ “n genre. Al- Bay “! w # ‘s philosophical theological work, the ( aw”l #i al-Anw “r, is divided into three parts, where the first part can clearly be called a philosophical theology of nature ( Daq ! q al-Kal “m) on epistemology, existence, non-existence, position, senses, cosmology, movement, time, singulars and multiples, cause and caused, bodies and atoms, and cause and effect. Only 23after this discussion on nature does he delve into a theology on God and on prophethood. 24Al-Bay “! w # studied and researched many of the ideas of the Greek, Persian, and Arab philosophers on nature, and was deeply influenced by Avicennian neo-Aristotelianism and the reworkings of it by the theologians ( Mutakallim %n), especially al-R ! z # . Within this 25worldview, nature is seen as completely contingent on God’s will and wherein God can create without any means (creation ex-nihilo) or time (instantaneous) and Theistic creationism is constantly emphasized to prove God’s existence and attributes, but at the same time the order and constitution of nature is seen as real and part of the proof that God is good and wise. And this natural order has an inbuilt teleology, a gradual progress towards higher stages of &Abd All ! h al-Bay “! w # , Nature, Man and God in Medieval Islam: #Abd Allah BaydawiÕs Text, TawaliÕ Al- 21Anwar Min Matali’ Al-Anzar, along with Mahmud Isfahani’s Commentary, Matali’ Al-Anzar, Sharh Tawali’ Al- Anwar , ed. Edwin Elliot Calverley and James Pollock (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1:xxiv, xxvi-xxxiii. Mu %ammad al- Sayd al-Dhahab # , al-Tafs ! r wa al-Mufassir %n (Cairo: Maktabah Wahbah, 1996), 1:304-311. &Abd All ! h al- Bay “! w # , Anw “r al-Tanz ! l wa “sr “r al-T “&w! l, ed. Ma %m (d &Abd al-Q ! dir al-Arn ! Õw (* (Beirut: D ! r +! dr, 2004), 1:5-8. al-Bay “! w # discusses public interest dozens of time throughout his exegesis, both with legal and non-legal 22verses (for example on verse 2:216), while al-Zamakhshar # only mentions it a few times. Also with verses on nature and cosmology al-Zamakhshar # mostly focuses on discussing the imagery ( Ta , w! r and Takhy ! l) or metaphorical ( Tamth ! l) language used in those verses to convey a message, while al-Bay “! w # follows him in this (see their exegesis on verse 41:11), he also sometimes adds natural philosophical concepts (compare their exegesis on verse 41:9). Ab ( al-Q ! sim al-Zamakhshar # , al-Kash “f #an ‘aq”&iq al-Tanz ! l wa #uy %n al- &Aq “w! l fi wuj %h al-T “&w! l (Beirut: D ! r al-Kit ! b al- &Arab # , 1987), 4:187-189. al-Bay “! w # , Anw “r al-Tanz ! l, 1:122, 2:936-937. &Abd All ! h al-Bay “! w # , ( aw”l #i al-Anw “r min Mat “lÔi al-An )” r (Cairo: Maktabah al-Azhariyyah li-lTur ! th, 23n.d.), 75-146. Ibid, 165-247. 24 On Ibn S # n! and al-R ! z # , see: Marwan Rashed, ÔNatural PhilosophyÕ, in The Cambridge Companion to Arabic 25Philosophy , ed. Peter Adamson and Richard Taylor (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 287-307. 6
PAGE – 8 ============
Modern and Classical ScientiÞc Readings of the QurÕ ! n Arnold Mol but to nourishment of progressive evolution, linking the word to its root-meaning of ‘womb’. 30With cosmological and biological creation we look at verses with these contents and see what Wadud and al-Bay “! w # ‘s interpretations can tell us about their views on nature. As both add a lot of material in their exegesis I have to single out their main points concerning the above three topics. Wadud in general focuses on the compatibility between science and the QurÕ ! n and thus uses verses as introductions to his exposition of modern scientific cosmology. al- Bay “! w # incorporates many compatibility discourses between those verses and philosophical theology, natural philosophy, Fiqh, history, linguistics etc. 1) Theology: QurÕ ! n 1:2 !”#!$%!&'() *+!, “The Sustainer of the worlds ( Rabbi al- !” lam # n). “Wadud: ¥ÓRabubiyyat is one of the attributes or basic characteristics of Allah and it means Ñ the provision of sustenance to an object from its initial stage to the stage of its Þnal destination.Ò ¥ÓLife on this earth evolved from unicellar organisms to multicellular organisms of complex nature. As soon as a new type evolves, it becomes a potential ancestor for many simultaneous descendent lines and each line becomes specially adapted in a particular way.Ò ¥He then cites verses 71:17 and 11:6, and provides eight pages of explanations of evolution: chemical evolution, singular cells, multicellular organisms, cooperative labour, water cycle. ¥Ó Ô “lam means a sign from which a certain thing could be known [..]. The presence of the physical world indicates that there is a Creator behind it.Ò [ G, 45-55] al-Bay !” w # :¥Ó[al-Rabb ] conveys something towards its perfection ( kam ! lahu ) from something to somethingÒ ¥ÓIt designates through it the owner ( al-M ! lik ) that he maintains (ya # fa $) what he owns and rears it ( yurabbiyyahu )Ò¥ÓThe world ( al-Ô ! lam ) is designated as such as He is known through it [..] He is known through it as the constructing Designer ( al- %! na &) and He is Other ( siw ! hu ) from everything as from substance ( al-Jaw ! hir ) and cause ( al- “& r!’ ), so that its [i.e. world] possibility and its need to a necessary cause for its essence ( muÕathththir w ! jib li-dh ! tahu ) proves His existence ( wuj(dahu).Ò [1:14] Wadud, Gateway , 57-72.30 8
PAGE – 9 ============
Modern and Classical ScientiÞc Readings of the QurÕ ! n Arnold Mol As can be seen, both theological expositions have close resemblance in its linguistic explanations and the theological implications of them. For both, God is teleologically active within creation to sustain it beneficially towards completion. The main difference is that for Wadud these terms are used as proofs for evolution within creation, while for al-Bay “! w # they prove the complete otherness of God compared to creation and the complete contingency of the latter. From this we already notice that Wadud is mostly concerned with a philosophy of nature, while al-Bay “! w # is mostly concerned with theology. We know look at some ‘cosmological’ verses. 1) Theology: QurÕ ! n 1:3 #-.#/01() #23!4’/01() “Most Merciful, Ever Merciful ( al-Ra $ m % n al-Ra $# m).”Wadud: ¥ÓThe word Ra # mah [..] stands for means of nourishment manifest or hiddenÒ¥Ra $ m” n is a grammatical form expressing sudden and violent occurences, and Ra $# m expresses slow and gradual occurrences. ¥Wadud then goes into a long exposition whereby cosmological and biological evolutionary phases resemble sudden or gradual creation and the six days creation are compared to six geological era’s. [ G, 57-72] al-Bay !” w # :¥Óal-Ra # mah in the language is amiability of the heart, and compassion/sympathy/tender attachment ( ini& t!f) which requires kindness and goodness, and from it the womb ( al-Ra # im ) for its tender enveloping on what is in it. [..][And He provides] through it His subtle teleological grace ( bi-Lu ) fahu ) and beneÞcial blessings [..] so one can obtain beneÞts ( al-intif !& a)Ò [1:13] ¥Ó[The QurÕ ” n was revealed from Him being al-Ra # m! n and al-Ra #* m] which proves that He commissioned religious and worldly welfare interest ( al-Ma +! li # al-D * niyyah wa al-Dunyawiyyah )Ò [2:935, on verse 41:2] 9
PAGE – 10 ============
Modern and Classical ScientiÞc Readings of the QurÕ ! n Arnold Mol 2) Cosmological creation: QurÕ ! n 41:9 5+!, !6#(3!7 8 )9:)!;’?!( !@A>B!&’C!D!E #'”!F’A!G H#I !J’,!’K) !L!B!M N#O0(%#P !@E>1>Q’R!S!( ‘->R0T#U!= ‘V>W!”#!$%!&'()”Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.” Wadud: ¥ÓThe word ‘Alameen’ as it occurs in the verse (41:9) has been considered by some commentators to mean ‘astronomical worlds”. It is true that the Quran has pointed towards the existence of life on heavenly bodies other than the earth. [..] there is a possibility of the existence of life on other planets in the universe which have got the same conditions that exist in our earth and where living creatures may also be present.Ò [ H, 45]¥ÓThus according to the Quran, the creation of the heavens and the earth, took place in Two Eras. The word Yawm usually translated as ‘day’, means here a very very long period of time. [..] In scientiÞc term the period of creation of the material world is called ‘Azoic’ i.e. without life. The Quran however, divides this period into twoÒ [ G, 18-19] al-Bay !” w # :¥ÓIn the extent of two days, or two alterations/times ( nawbatayn ) and He created in totality of time what He created instantaneous ( f* ! sra &)Ò¥Ó{the earth } what in aspect is the lowest from the scattered celestial bodies ( al-Saß min al- “jr ! m al-Bas *) )Ò¥{in two days } that He created for it a joint essence ( !+ l ! mushtarak !) then He created for it a shape through which He shapes species ( !nw!&! n)Ò¥Ó{Lord of the worlds } He is the Creator ( Kh ! liq ) of all that exists (wujida) from the possible and its rearing ( murabb * h !)Ò [2:936] What is meant by the possible is that nothing exists from necessity by itself, only God necessarily exists. ¥On verse 7:54 he refers to the six days creation as six time spans/ periods ( sitah awq ! t). [1:342] 10
PAGE – 11 ============
Modern and Classical ScientiÞc Readings of the QurÕ ! n Arnold Mol 2) Cosmological creation: QurÕ ! n 41:11 %!S!(%!W %9X’1!Y ‘E!= %9Z’A![ %!.#S’U) #J’,!’\#(!E %!]!( !^%!_!I `@%!M>: !H#X!E #a%!40b() c!(#d 3e!A!S’f) 0->g!”#&#U%![ %!T’.!D!=”Moreover He directed towards the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: “Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.” They said: “We do come (together), in willing obedience.””Wadud: ¥ÓTo begin with the entire universe was smoke. Smoke, as we know, consists of gases as well as Þne particles in a more or less stable suspension, which may be solids or even liquids at high or low temperatures.Ò ¥ÓCome ye willingly or unwillingly-Allah is the sovereign of the universe. His authority reigns supreme. The entire creation is bound by the splints of His laws. The inanimate objects submit to Him by means of the physical laws which are ingrained in their very substance.Ò [ H, 49]al-Bay !” w # :¥ Ó{ and it is smoke } and perhaps He intends through it its substances (m! ddatah !) or small parts which are prescribed for it. { He said to it and the earth: come together } through which you are created in you two from the causal effect ( al- “th * r) and emerge what is deposited from different states and diversity of living beings. Or { come together } in ontological existence ( al-Wuj ( d) on the preceding creation with the meaning of calculated quantity ( al-Taqd * r) or arrangement ( al-Tart * b) in degree, or the conveyance in the created occurrence what is intented is its being generated ( tawl*dahu) [..] { willingly or unwillingly} you want it or deny it and the intent demonstrating His complete omnipotence and necessity of the intended occurrence [..] { They said: we come together willingly } together are lead by the Divine essence (bi-lDh ! t), and demonstrating that the purpose is to illustrate ( ta +w * r) the causational effect of His omnipotence in them and their causational effect through the Divine essence on it, and their metaphor (tamath * lhum !) is that of the command of the obedient and the consent of the compliant as He said: { Be and it is }Ò [2:936-937] 11
34 KB – 19 Pages