News:

About us: a forum for monotheists, and discussion of Islam based on The Quran

Main Menu

Exalted Assembly?

Started by Ahmad Bilal, December 11, 2009, 10:00:47 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ahmad Bilal

Peace to all,

What is the "exalted assembly" (i.e. high society, etc.) mentioned in 37:8? Some have interpreted this as meaning that Allah is a PLURALITY, and His Oneness is actually the unity of all members of the assembly. They say that Allah Himself is ONE BEING, but, in perspective, He is not the ONLY god; rather, He's the highest among the other members of the assembly (i.e. angels). Therefore, when the scriptures use such words as "We" and "Us" in reference to God, it is referring to the entire "exalted assembly", the unity of the whole. This is also the reasons why, in instances when Allah ALONE is being mentioned, without the collective body of the assembly, the words "I" and "Me" are used, instead of the plural references.

Does anyone have a particular viewpoint on this? That was the first time I'd heard that perspective on this subject and the interpretation of the "exalted assembly", and, in my opinion, it seemed very interesting...

Peace,

Ahmad
"The true delight is in the finding out, rather than in the knowing." - Isaac Asimov

san



True Love waits forever -- some just choose to fall in love sooner than some others. And the rest is by the way... nothing.

SarahY

Plurality? Dude, no I don?t think so. Qul huwa allahu AHAD (1:112) beats all plurality thoughts so does 37:4. Monotheism doesn?t make sense with plurality.

Remember Quran is written in a unique kind of style like 1st person, 2nd and 3rd person for example. So I don?t think the thought is right. 

Salam
We all have blind spots.
Follow your heart but take your brain with you.
ambiguity is there for a reason, why do you think?
We're all different, so how can we all be equal?

abdullah_m

This makes complete sense when you understand Traditional Metaphysics (not the new-age kind) and its teaching on the Divine Order. But the way it was stated here is not correct, and without the metaphysical key, this is a dangerous idea.

The "exalted assembly" could even include the messenger in this chain of We.

[2.285] ... Each one believeth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers ...

It's not shirk though, if you understand the Divine Order and always know that Allah is not in need of the angels or the worlds. There is a huge difference between saying that something created is a god and saying that all creation is encompassed by God and therefore part of His unity. The first is Pantheism. The second is Islam.

What is not God? Is it even possible for something to have being and be apart from God? No, that thing would dissolve into nothing instantly without its existence continually rooted in the Absolute. Outside God, nothing is.

So every atom and photon is God - in the relative sense that they originate from Him and return to Him.

Angels can be viewed as a personification of the Principle, the Command, the Rules of Nature, the Informers. Their ontology is prior to material manifestation, thus they are higher beings.

Whatever is ontologically above us is "relatively" Divine. But we are given the amazing instruction in the Qur'an never to stop at the relative, not even for angels, and to go all the way up to the Pure Absolute with our worship.

The highest realization is that I am God. However, almost nobody gets this in the right way - that is, without falling into pantheism/shirk.

And that's why it's a dangerous idea.
(7.170) As for those who hold onto the Book and keep up prayer ? We shall never forfeit reformers' wages.

Ahmad Bilal

Peace Sarah,

Quote from: Sarah on December 12, 2009, 07:57:40 AM
Plurality? Dude, no I don?t think so. Qul huwa allahu AHAD (1:112) beats all plurality thoughts so does 37:4. Monotheism doesn?t make sense with plurality.

I'm not saying that I believe this or anything, but it does make sense. Singularity doesn't necessarily imply absolute solitarism; it could refer to an absolute unity. Saying that Allah is ONE doesn't necessarily mean that He is "one person". Rather, it could also mean that He is of "one mind", or totally unified. Yes, 37:4 says that Allah is "ONE"; but then, directly afterwards, it says that Allah ("WE") adorned the lower heaven with an adornment of stars (37:6). In fact, it even goes on to say that Allah ("WE") created mankind from clay (37:11), even though the Qur'aan says that the angels didn't create Adam, which is why they were instructed to submit ("prostrate") to him/us. This implies that the angels are not part of Allah's "unity", that there is a distinguishment between the "exalted assembly" and the angels... So, what is this assembly?

Quote from: Sarah on December 12, 2009, 07:57:40 AM
Remember Quran is written in a unique kind of style like 1st person, 2nd and 3rd person for example. So I don’t think the thought is right.

So, why would Allah, if He was ONE PERSON, refer to Himself as "Me" and "I" in certain verses, but then refer to Himself as "We" and "Us" in other verses, even if they immediately succeed the others? And then, beside this, other verses refer to Allah as "He" and "Him" - why is there a distinguishment?

Peace,

Ahmad
"The true delight is in the finding out, rather than in the knowing." - Isaac Asimov

Ahmad Bilal

Peace Abdullah,

I understand exactly what you're saying, and this is partially the way I was interpreting it. I believe that Allah exists completely independent of us, since He is the only thing in reality (everything comes from Him and returns to Him). In this same sense, though, Allah exists within and without us...

I think, personally, that it's compatible with the concepts of a higher and lower self, the higher self being a manifestation of Allah (the "spirit" that He blew into Adam/mankind), and the lower self is the "satan" that continually misleads and restricts us, if we allow it. Therefore, based on this idea, in a metaphysical sense, we can ALL be regarded as being "God". However, in the complete sense, beyond the metaphysical idea, we can be regarded as God, as long as we manifest the traits of our higher self (Allah), since this is literally where we came from and where we will return. Those who choose to succumb to evil, in the form of their lower self ("al shaytaan"), become devils, rejectors, disbelievers, hypocrites, etc.; when they return to their Creator, they will be cast away, or placed in an uncomfortable place or position. The opposite is true of those who manifest the qualities of Allah, being manifestations of God Himself, who work righteousness. There is a difference between a creation and a manifestation. By acknowledging and embracing our spiritual conciousness, the higher self, which is the breath/spirit of Allah (or Allah in man), then we can become BOTH of these, thus becoming reflections and manifestations of the Creator.

When viewed from this standpoint, it becomes clear why the doctrines of the previous scriptures included statements like, "Ye are gods and of God" (Psalms); "You shall become God Himself, formations of the gods" (Vedas); "He (God) is among us and within us, as we are Gods" (Contentings of Horus and Seth); "He who has seen me has seen the Father also", and "The Father and I are one" (Biblical gospels); "Man cannot die, since the spirit-man is God. While God lives, man cannot die" (Reflections of the Aquarian Gospels, derived from the akashic records); etc....

Now, I disagree with your metaphysical idea regarding the total encompassing state of Allah, even though this can also be seen as a reality; I don't disagree with the physical aspect of it, but I disagree with the spiritual aspect of it. I think everything in nature is in a state of progression. Science says that everything progressively evolves to a higher plane (stage) of life. Humans are regarded as being the peak of that evolutionary process, even in the Qur'aan, since even the angels must submit to us. So, where do we go from here? And yes, the highest realization is that I am God, and I agree that many fail to understand this without falling into the trap of pantheism. However, we have to take into the consideration of the evolutionary process. Allah doesn't submit to Himself, which is why Allah can never be called a "muslim". In reality, we are all God, complete manifestations of the Divine; however, this can only be attained when we submit to Allah within us (our higher self). This is the meaning of the Biblical statement that we were made in 'the image and likeness of God'. In realizing the peak of our potential evolution, we become Allah's "vicegerants" here on earth.

Do you consider this belief "shirk"?
"The true delight is in the finding out, rather than in the knowing." - Isaac Asimov

san

Ahmad Bilal,

Do you think

Laa ilaaha Illa Allah

not god except The God


is not to be taken literally?


Quote from: Ahmad Bilal on December 12, 2009, 06:04:54 PM
So, why would Allah, if He was ONE PERSON, refer to Himself as "Me" and "I" in certain verses, but then refer to Himself as "We" and "Us" in other verses, even if they immediately succeed the others? And then, beside this, other verses refer to Allah as "He" and "Him" - why is there a distinguishment?

The answer is right on those verses. When it comes to `ibadah, to whom you are referred?

"He/Him/Thee" or "Them"?
"Me/I" or "Us/We"?
"Allah" or the "Exalted Assembly"?

10:28 and 28:63 should give some clue: where`ibadah meets plural

(And stay away from Muhsin Khan's translation for this matter, or anyone else carelessly using the word "Us".)


Peace


True Love waits forever -- some just choose to fall in love sooner than some others. And the rest is by the way... nothing.

Ahmad Bilal

Peace San,

Quote from: san on December 13, 2009, 12:39:34 AM
Do you think

Laa ilaaha Illa Allah

not god except The God


is not to be taken literally?

I definately believe that statement should be taken literally. The problem is the description of these words, the interpretation concerning them... For starters, the title/name "Allah" doesn't necessarily mean "the god", at least not in my view. Similarly, the word "ilaaha" can't necessarily have the same focal idea as the English word "god". The word "ilah" refers to something loved, served or worshipped; something that protects, liberates, or rescues; or any object of total adoration or idolization.

Developing the view that Allah is a technical plurality doesn't violate these views. The statement that there is no 'object of worship' other than Allah doesn't mean there aren't any false gods or idolized materials or persons on the planet. Rather, it's a command to us that we shouldn't idolize anyone other than "Allah". Therefore, hypothetically, if someone believed that Allah was a UNIFIED GROUP, then, in serving this GROUP, the person is not serving any one/thing else; ascribing partners to the group; restricting the power or imposing limitations onto the group; demeaning the group in any way; diminishing the unity (or "oneness") of the group; or anything else of this nature. The effect would be the same. If "Allah" was the name of the unified group, or even the highest presiding officer and overall authority within the group, then it would still fit the same system. The religion would still be regarded as a formalized approach to monotheism, since "tawhiyd" simply acknowledges the Supreme "unity" of Allah (God); nothing else is specifically implied at all...

Quote from: san on December 13, 2009, 12:39:34 AM
The answer is right on those verses. When it comes to `ibadah, to whom you are referred?

"He/Him/Thee" or "Them"?
"Me/I" or "Us/We"?
"Allah" or the "Exalted Assembly"?

10:28 and 28:63 should give some clue: where`ibadah meets plural

You're comparing this to a doctrinal view of polytheism; I'm not. I simply said that the "unity" of Allah could LITERALLY be a "unity", as in a united collaborations of more than one being. For example, the Bible says that man (Adam) and woman (Eve) united and became "one flesh". It doesn't necessarily mean that they were one being; it meant they were totally united and indivisible from eachother. Likewise, in the Qur'aan, mankind is considered "one" - does this mean we are all ONE PERSON? Adam is referred to as "one" (ahaad), but this doesn't mean that it specifically refers to one person; many of the things relating to Adam actually refer to all of humanity (i.e. a person represents an entire group of people, nation, or community).

This idea, if not relevant anywhere else, can definately be applied to Allah. Why? Because Allah is depicted as a living energy. This energy, in reality, exceeds everything else, and it is literally present everywhere. Do I believe that "Allah" represents a group of people, and He is simply one of many? Of course not! Do I believe that men (humans) can become manifestations of Allah, becoming "one" with Him? Yes, I do. Do I believe that Allah has a divine council that He heads, which governs everything else? I don't know, but it's a possibility. One thing I completely disagree with is the idea of Allah being some type of invisible Superman sitting on a flying throne in space.

What do you specifically believe the "exalted assembly" to be?
"The true delight is in the finding out, rather than in the knowing." - Isaac Asimov

san

Peace Ahmad Bilal,

Quote from: Ahmad Bilal on December 13, 2009, 04:13:29 AM
The word "ilah" refers to something loved, served or worshipped; something that protects, liberates, or rescues; or any object of total adoration or idolization.

Then for the sake of argument, let's assign those meanings to the word "god".

I would like to point out the Sura 112 again, this time on the last verse:

And not is (be) for Him equivalent, any.

* why should Allah be compared with that humanly example in Bible?

* why should Allah be compared with Superman in space?

* And what space? And where in AQ it is described that Allah is contained within "space" (something that must've been created by Allah)?


If there were any plurality in the concept of Allah, then in my opinion, Asma'al Husna is. In that case, to take all the Best Asmaa' (plural) as One Ilah, as Allah, makes all sense to me.


To get back on topic: AlmalaA'i Al'A`laa, or this "Exalted Assembly", what made us have to accept that it means "Allah"?

Quote from: Ahmad Bilal on December 13, 2009, 04:13:29 AM
What do you specifically believe the "exalted assembly" to be?

I have a vague picture of what the "assembly" is, but have you checked each and every concordance of the word malaa', especially in similar forms to that of 37:8?
Have you compared that to Fir`aun and his "assembly/chiefs" for example? Is Fir`aun part of his own "assembly/chiefs"? Remember, we're only talking about malaa' here and nothing else.

On the "danger" side,

Quote from: Ahmad Bilal on December 13, 2009, 04:13:29 AM
if someone believed that Allah was a UNIFIED GROUP, then, in serving this GROUP, the person is not serving any one/thing else; ascribing partners to the group; restricting the power or imposing limitations onto the group; demeaning the group in any way; diminishing the unity (or "oneness") of the group; or anything else of this nature. The effect would be the same.

Quote from: Ahmad Bilal on December 13, 2009, 04:13:29 AM
Do I believe that men (humans) can become manifestations of Allah, becoming "one" with Him? Yes, I do.

How do you explain this?

Have we ever been asked to become "manifestations of Allah" in AQ?



True Love waits forever -- some just choose to fall in love sooner than some others. And the rest is by the way... nothing.

abdullah_m

Quote from: Ahmad Bilal on December 12, 2009, 06:51:53 PM
Do you consider this belief "shirk"?

If the belief you are refering to is the belief that we humans are manifestations of God, then no, I don't consider that shirk because of that critical word "of" which creates the necessary discontinuity between the Supreme Principle and the manifestation.

I don't know why you have to make a distinction between physical and spiritual concerning what God encompasses.

[6.103] Vision comprehendeth Him not, but He comprehendeth (all) vision. He is the Subtile, the Aware.

Are you not wanting to admit that God encompasses evil as well as good?

[4.108] They may try to hide from people while they can never hide from God: He stands alongside them when they spend the night talking about something He does not approve of; God surrounds anything they do...

[67.12] ... Hide anything you say or else shout it out: He is still Aware of whatever is on your minds. Does He not know anyone He has created? He is the Gracious, the Informed!

I have left the realm of evolutionary arguments. It has been revealed to us by the Creator that we are fallen creatures. We are devolving and decaying from our primordial perfection, not evolving. This is a key point in metaphysics also, for example, when the Vedas describe the 4 "yugas" of the cosmic cycle.

Finally, if you are careful about it, with this line of reasoning, you can prove the "relative" divinity of Christ. It just depends on how big you draw that circle of what is included in the exalted assembly.

Peace.
(7.170) As for those who hold onto the Book and keep up prayer ? We shall never forfeit reformers' wages.