Exalted Assembly?

[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

[san]

wat

[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

[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.

[Ahmad Bilal]

Peace Sarah,

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?

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

[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"?

[san]

Ahmad Bilal,

Do you think

Laa ilaaha Illa Allah

not god except The God

is not to be taken literally?

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

[Ahmad Bilal]

Peace San,

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...

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?

[san]

Peace Ahmad Bilal,

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"?

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,

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.

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?

[abdullah_m]

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.

[Ahmad Bilal]

Peace San,

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

Okay...

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)?

I never said that any humans were "equivalent", or even comparable, to Allah. I simply said that we are products of Him, which is why some even refer to us (humans) as His "children"... You asked why Allah should be compared with human examples in the Bible. Well, the Tanakh claims to be the authentic word of Allah, particularly the Torah. And within the Torah, there are many examples of people "meeting" God, looking at Him, conversing with Him, and all other types of examples. What do you think of these?

In comparing Him to a "Superman in space", this is the prevalent view of God today. If you disagree, then please state what YOUR view is concerning Him. What is He, where is He, and where did He come from? Do we need to turn to Mekka to pray to Him? And what does the Qur'aan mean when it calls humanity the "khalifa" (successor) of 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.

Okay, great example... The question is: HOW does this make sense if it's specifically speaking about ONE PERSON, or Being? It would make perfect sense if it was referring to a unified group, or even to a Prime Source, such as collective energy. But the claim that this is specifically referring to ONE SINGLE PERSON just doesn't make sense...

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

Great question... Who else could it be talking about? It says that the "jinn" race, as well as those among the unrighteous, would be forbidden from approaching this exalted assembly. Also, the context of the word "exalted" (could also refer to raised, highest, elevated, etc.) is always used in the Qur'aan, in the positive sense, as a formidable person or group, someone that Allah has blessed, or even Allah Himself. The others are referring to prideful people who Allah humiliates... So, who do YOU think it's talking about?

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.

None of them were called "exalted"...

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

No, we've been told to become His successors, vicegerants, or represenatives ("khalifa"). In order for this to be possible, we have to be like Him... Right?

[Ahmad Bilal]

Peace Abdullah,

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 know that God is encompassed in everything, but He specifically chose HUMANS to be his represenatives, or whatever meaning you assign to the word "khalifa". The actual meaning of the word implies exercising dominion in the absense of another. Does that mean that Allah is not "here", so He assigned humans to be "gods" in His place? I personally don't think so, but others may arrive at this conclusion... How do you interpret this?

The reason I assign this aspect of "quasi-divinity" is because humans can only carry out this position as khalifas if we behave righteously, becoming products of our "Higher Self", or the righteous spirit/conciousness that Allah places within us. When we fail to do this, and choose to become wicked people, rejectors of Allah's law, then we cease to be khalifas, and instead we become "devils".

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.

So, you believe in the concept of us being "inherently flawed", and we're progressively getting worse, or farther from perfection? Personally, I disagree. Upliftment, to the point of perfection, is based on Knowledge. When people acquire Knowledge, they can use it to better themselves and the people around them. And since more people are gaining Knowledge and insight in this day and age, then I think we're moving CLOSER to perfection, or at least a select few people are doing so... In ancient times, ideas were based completely on "faith", which, in my opinion, is an unrealistic concept. By having "faith", you're justified in believing ANYTHING, just because you believe that it came from a certain source or because you read it in a certain book. The key to attaining true enlightenment, and therefore perfection, is the gaining of Knowledge and Understanding. People didn't do this in ancient times, which is what made them flawed and imperfect, even "decaying". But times have changed...

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.

I don't think Christians are wrong in emphasizing a relationship between God and Jesus. I think they're wrong from dictating this as a sole emphasis. In other words, instead of saying that Jesus is "a" product of Allah, they say that he is "the" product. Instead of referring to Jesus as "a" son of God, they claim that he is "the" son. This exalts his status above the rest of humanity, while, at the same time, lowering God's status to the position of humanity. This, in my view, is the reason the Qur'aan condemns this idea. Also, in my view, to counteract this claim, the scripture doesn't say that Jesus ISN'T a product of God; rather, it says that Jesus is just like the rest of humanity, saying that he is like "Adam", meaning a regular person. This means Jesus isn't above or below the rest of us, but we are all the same... And no, I don't believe that Jesus is part of the "exalted assembly".

Peace!

[san]

Peace Ahmad Bilal,

Peace San,

Okay...

I never said that any humans were "equivalent", or even comparable, to Allah.

OK. i got that, i'm only pointing the "danger" side of what the two statements implied. Then let me use 112:4 again to test the idea of "an assembly of Allah". Probably related to a very small part of discrete math that actually got into my head:

* What do you call "a member of Allah"?

If the answer to that question is "Allah" then:
* If there is not one equivalent to Allah (112:4), how can there be "n members of Allah" with n > 1?

I simply said that we are products of Him, which is why some even refer to us (humans) as His "children"... You asked why Allah should be compared with human examples in the Bible. Well, the Tanakh claims to be the authentic word of Allah, particularly the Torah. And within the Torah, there are many examples of people "meeting" God, looking at Him, conversing with Him, and all other types of examples. What do you think of these?

Interactions between the Creator and His creations. To be honest, the "how" is beyond my imagination, and i can only approach it emotionally at best.

And I have to say that i am currently an ignorant of the original language of Bible and Tanakh, so i can't really comment on them.

In comparing Him to a "Superman in space", this is the prevalent view of God today. If you disagree, then please state what YOUR view is concerning Him.

I see what you mean, however the point still holds, we should stick to AQ rather than (our assumption of) what the others may view.

What is He, where is He, and where did He come from? Do we need to turn to Mekka to pray to Him? And what does the Qur'aan mean when it calls humanity the "khalifa" (successor) of Allah?

Thank you for the questions, you've just conducted for me an introspection.  

What is He? my khaliq, my rabb, and where i will return to. An understatement is to say that in any situation, the most difficult and the easiest, i need to think of only one name to remind me of all the perfect concepts, some of which may be what are relevant to the situation i am facing at the moment.

Where is He? He is nearer to me than i thought (2:186), still i don't know exactly where. Again, i can only answer this emotionally.

Where did He come from? And where is He going to? i don't know -- all i know is that i came from Him and will return to Him. It is weird for one who believes in AQ to position Him against another reference point in whereaboutness, while it is expressed that He is the "reference point" of everything: everything is from Him and everything returns to Him. So where is Allah? Allah is where Allah is. Where are we, in reference to Allah? I don't know. Oh wait, it's been answered before: Allah is near. This is actually one verse where Allah used the first person singular:

2:186 And when My `ibad ask you concerning Me, then, surely I am near; I answer the invocation of the invoker when he invokes Me; so let them respond for Me, and let them believe with Me, so that they may follow rightly.

"Turn to Mekka"? Allah is closer to me than my own jugular vein (50:16). The city and the cube can never be as close to me. Flying there and back home is quite an expense--which we could better distribute to the people with rights around us. (i know it's not part of your question so pardon me for that)

"khalifa"? i have not studied the word enough to make a worthy comment. However it's interesting to note that the same root Kha-Lam-Fa derived the word "khilaf"... and that according to PRL, in addition to the positive notions, it also derived this meanings:

remain behind/not go forth, to be kept back from all good, to not prosper or be successful, to become corrupt or altered for the worse, retire/withdraw/go away, to turn away from/avoid/shun a thing, to become foolish/idiotic/deficient in intellect, contrarious/hard in disposition, to leave behind, to appoint someone as successor, disagree with or differ from someone, contradict or oppose someone, to break/fail to perform a promise, to follow reciprocally/alternate/interchange, repeatedly move to and fro (coming and going), to differ/ be dissimilar

Okay, great example... The question is: HOW does this make sense if it's specifically speaking about ONE PERSON, or Being? It would make perfect sense if it was referring to a unified group, or even to a Prime Source, such as collective energy. But the claim that this is specifically referring to ONE SINGLE PERSON just doesn't make sense...

but what is a person? All i know is that Allah is the Perfection of all those names (Asmaa AlHusna).

As for a human person, i can ask you similarly:
-- A person is honest, smart, kind, lovely, strong, gentle, compassionate, among other characters the person has.
Q: HOW does this make sense if it's specifically speaking about ONE PERSON, or Being?
A: It makes all sense to me, that if Allah wills, a person can BE all those, or at least that's part of my understanding of what "bashar" is. By the way, of course a person is biologically a "unified group" called an "organism". And maybe we can consider a person as physically a "unified group" of living energy.

As you might have noticed by now, i may seem to conduct an analogy of "equivalence" to Allah, which is against my own previous point on 112:4, but no--in fact i am going to compare: Who is more capable of encompassing a multitude of characters/names/natures and yet stays as one (i'll leave it up to you to choose: being, entity, person); the human person, or Allah?

Does each character/name/nature need to be of its own being/entity/person?

Great question... Who else could it be talking about? It says that the "jinn" race, as well as those among the unrighteous, would be forbidden from approaching this exalted assembly. Also, the context of the word "exalted" (could also refer to raised, highest, elevated, etc.) is always used in the Qur'aan, in the positive sense, as a formidable person or group, someone that Allah has blessed, or even Allah Himself. The others are referring to prideful people who Allah humiliates... So, who do YOU think it's talking about?

Creations made exalted by Allah. Perhaps they are given access to interact with Allah in the ways unthinkable to us, and for sure the jinns are denied access to them, as you have pointed out.

Allah made His creations perform what He wills. And it's interesting that when some of the creations perform what Allah wills (often about rahmah of Allah--k-t-b, r-s-l etc), they, the creations, are "included" in reference to Allah. So we can have in AQ, a better sense of the encompassing breadth of the kingdom of Allah. the god in AQ is not one who says "I Me Mine" all the time. IIRC, such direct, singular 1st person reference to Allah is much fewer than say, 3rd person or plural 1st person. Thus i see verses where Allah is "referred" inclusively of His creations, and verses where Allah is "referred" exclusively as the only one for us to focus/attend to when reading them. 2:186 as we just read before is a prime example.

None of them were called "exalted"...

yet i thought i reminded you that we're only talking about malaa' there and nothing else.

my reason was: seeing how you focused on the word "exalted", i assume you first approached the phrase "malaa' AlA`laa" from the attribute "AlA`laa", while i think it's better to first start from what is this (malaa') that is being attributed. Which is to me is the core issue here.

No, we've been told to become His successors, vicegerants, or represenatives ("khalifa"). In order for this to be possible, we have to be like Him... Right?

I wouldn't say so, and would return to verse 112:4 again. And not is for Him equivalent, any/one.

Instead, i noticed:

   "Amanuw (bi Allah)!"
   "Ittaquw (Allah)!"
   "Jahaduw (fi sabilillah)!"
   ...

From my understanding of AQ, we are suggested to be "muslims" to Allah, if we wanted to experience true "peace".


Peace

(ed: added important point "with n > 1")

[abdullah_m]

1. khalifa. I agree with your interpretation. And we can safely say that God is not "here" in the physical sense that He, in his pure Absoluteness, cannot be contained by any created form. We are not "gods" in His place, but we are meant to be, as ibn 'Arabi writes, the appropriate container of all the Divine Names/attributes. He says this is what elevates us above angels, because angels represent only partial attributes. So the ideal khalifa I would say is the one who most perfectly reflects all the Names.

2. evolution. The whole universe is "inherently flawed" my friend. Why is anyone born blind? Why do we get sick? Evil is inherent in the system, but by Allah's rahmah, there are immune systems to counter the flaws. So the rahmah is always greater, and the Truth always wins in the end. But concerning knowledge, this is merely a hoarding and collecting of horizontal facts. Without taqwa, ilm can be disasterous. So we cure polio with this great "evolution" in knowledge, then we develop a bomb that kills 60,000 in a few seconds? We evolve into an oil-dependent society that decimates the balance of nature. Oh, but all these cancer patients have had their lives extended... so they can pollute more, great! Clearly, humans can't handle the knowledge, and it's because we don't have the wisdom and the fear of God to temper it. I'm sorry. No amount of scientific knowledge can make up for what we lost when we left the Garden, and we can't get back there on our own. This is actually the goal of the transhumanists. If you look into what they're up to, it's pretty sick. They really are trying to be gods. Yeah, times have changed!

3. Christians. I agree with you again. They see Christ as "the" perfect khalifa, but err regarding their position of exclusivity. Back to metaphysics, the relative is a multiplicity. Only God is exclusive Unity. So no manifested being in a particular time and space can ever be totally exclusive. Some early sects of Christianity believed that Jesus was never a man, but an apparition of pure spirit. This seems to solve the problem, but does so by making Christ a pure archetype, consequently stripping him of all individuality. Sometimes the new-agers will talk about this as "Christ-consiousness". Thanks to Al-Qur'an we know Jesus was really a man. He ate food. Therefore he must be "a" perfect khalifa among others. Still, I believe we should humble ourselves before the prophets.

[Ahmad Bilal]

Peace San,

OK. i got that, i'm only pointing the "danger" side of what the two statements implied. Then let me use 112:4 again to test the idea of "an assembly of Allah". Probably related to a very small part of discrete math that actually got into my head:

* What do you call "a member of Allah"?

If the answer to that question is "Allah" then:
* If there is not one equivalent to Allah (112:4), how can there be "n members of Allah" with n > 1?

I don't believe Allah can be separated, since He is totally one and unified... But this still doesn't explain the idea of the exalted assembly. What if "Allah" was just the HIGHEST MEMBER of the exalted assembly? Do you believe that viewing Allah in this way is equivalent to attributing partners to Him?

Interactions between the Creator and His creations. To be honest, the "how" is beyond my imagination, and i can only approach it emotionally at best.

And I have to say that i am currently an ignorant of the original language of Bible and Tanakh, so i can't really comment on them.

Okay, I understand... The Bible does make implications that Allah is a man, or that He is a MANIFEST Being, that He can be seen with the eyes, heard with the ears, and felt with the skin. That Qur'aan seems to say certain things that imply this as well... What do you think of this concept? And what do you think of the idea that Allah (as in the Supreme Creator God) is simply "pure energy"?

I see what you mean, however the point still holds, we should stick to AQ rather than (our assumption of) what the others may view.

I agree with examining the Qur'aan... The problem, though, is the Qur'aan isn't the only scripture of Allah. It also makes it evident that there were "muslims" before the revelation of the Qur'aan, meaning one doesn't have to examine the scripture in order to be a righteous muslim... The most manifest teaching of Allah is contained within all of us, through the "spirit"/"breath" that He placed inside humanity (Adam). We don't specifically need any book, prophet, or messenger to tap into this Divine teaching; we simply need to submit to (the spirit of) Allah, which is the highest form of us. After analyzing the scripture, this seems to be a fundamental teaching of many of the prophets, and their job was simply to "awaken" the masses, i.e. the people who were unrighteous and ungodly... What do you think of this?

Thank you for the questions, you've just conducted for me an introspection. 

What is He? my khaliq, my rabb, and where i will return to. An understatement is to say that in any situation, the most difficult and the easiest, i need to think of only one name to remind me of all the perfect concepts, some of which may be what are relevant to the situation i am facing at the moment.

Where is He? He is nearer to me than i thought (2:186), still i don't know exactly where. Again, i can only answer this emotionally.

Where did He come from? And where is He going to? i don't know -- all i know is that i came from Him and will return to Him. It is weird for one who believes in AQ to position Him against another reference point in whereaboutness, while it is expressed that He is the "reference point" of everything: everything is from Him and everything returns to Him. So where is Allah? Allah is where Allah is. Where are we, in reference to Allah? I don't know. Oh wait, it's been answered before: Allah is near. This is actually one verse where Allah used the first person singular:

2:186 And when My `ibad ask you concerning Me, then, surely I am near; I answer the invocation of the invoker when he invokes Me; so let them respond for Me, and let them believe with Me, so that they may follow rightly.

"Turn to Mekka"? Allah is closer to me than my own jugular vein (50:16). The city and the cube can never be as close to me. Flying there and back home is quite an expense--which we could better distribute to the people with rights around us. (i know it's not part of your question so pardon me for that)

Okay, thanks for your input... Do you think it's possible to "KNOW" God? The scriptures, i.e. Torah and Qur'aan, say that Abraham was Allah's "friend". How can one be a "friend" if he has no knowledge of Him? Can we also be God's friends if we don't know anything about Him?

"khalifa"? i have not studied the word enough to make a worthy comment. However it's interesting to note that the same root Kha-Lam-Fa derived the word "khilaf"... and that according to PRL, in addition to the positive notions, it also derived this meanings:

remain behind/not go forth, to be kept back from all good, to not prosper or be successful, to become corrupt or altered for the worse, retire/withdraw/go away, to turn away from/avoid/shun a thing, to become foolish/idiotic/deficient in intellect, contrarious/hard in disposition, to leave behind, to appoint someone as successor, disagree with or differ from someone, contradict or oppose someone, to break/fail to perform a promise, to follow reciprocally/alternate/interchange, repeatedly move to and fro (coming and going), to differ/ be dissimilar

but what is a person? All i know is that Allah is the Perfection of all those names (Asmaa AlHusna).

As for a human person, i can ask you similarly:
-- A person is honest, smart, kind, lovely, strong, gentle, compassionate, among other characters the person has.
Q: HOW does this make sense if it's specifically speaking about ONE PERSON, or Being?
A: It makes all sense to me, that if Allah wills, a person can BE all those, or at least that's part of my understanding of what "bashar" is. By the way, of course a person is biologically a "unified group" called an "organism". And maybe we can consider a person as physically a "unified group" of living energy.

As you might have noticed by now, i may seem to conduct an analogy of "equivalence" to Allah, which is against my own previous point on 112:4, but no--in fact i am going to compare: Who is more capable of encompassing a multitude of characters/names/natures and yet stays as one (i'll leave it up to you to choose: being, entity, person); the human person, or Allah?

Okay... To start, the word "khalifa" actually refers to a successor, one who is placed in the position of another after his/her departure. The word alone implies the idea that Allah was here on the earth, and, upon departing, He left mankind here to serve in His place. Does that mean this is what is "meant" by the word? Not really, but it could be. That's the point. There are endless possibilities in how to interpret this idea, and all we have are speculations to reach the conclusion that we wish. That's the reason there are so many different interpretations for this point...

When it comes to forming "comparisons" regarding Allah, the statement that 'nothing is like Him' shouldn't be taken completely literally either. For example, I know that 1+1=2. Does this mean that Allah doesn't know this? Of course not. It's a mode of interpretation. It means that none of us are as high (knowledgeable, wise, powerful, etc.) as Allah; it doesn't mean that nothing can be like, or comparable to, Him. This is why man can be a khalifa for Allah, meaning we are of Him, and we can become Him in our highest form of manifestation, i.e. by totally submitting to Him, we become "one" with Him.

Peace,

Ahmad

[Ahmad Bilal]

1. khalifa. I agree with your interpretation. And we can safely say that God is not "here" in the physical sense that He, in his pure Absoluteness, cannot be contained by any created form. We are not "gods" in His place, but we are meant to be, as ibn 'Arabi writes, the appropriate container of all the Divine Names/attributes. He says this is what elevates us above angels, because angels represent only partial attributes. So the ideal khalifa I would say is the one who most perfectly reflects all the Names.

I agree... Now, do you believe that a person, or a group of humans, can reflect these qualities? And, if he does, can he also become a "god", i.e. a human manifestation of Allah?

2. evolution. The whole universe is "inherently flawed" my friend. Why is anyone born blind? Why do we get sick? Evil is inherent in the system, but by Allah's rahmah, there are immune systems to counter the flaws. So the rahmah is always greater, and the Truth always wins in the end. But concerning knowledge, this is merely a hoarding and collecting of horizontal facts. Without taqwa, ilm can be disasterous. So we cure polio with this great "evolution" in knowledge, then we develop a bomb that kills 60,000 in a few seconds? We evolve into an oil-dependent society that decimates the balance of nature. Oh, but all these cancer patients have had their lives extended... so they can pollute more, great! Clearly, humans can't handle the knowledge, and it's because we don't have the wisdom and the fear of God to temper it. I'm sorry. No amount of scientific knowledge can make up for what we lost when we left the Garden, and we can't get back there on our own. This is actually the goal of the transhumanists. If you look into what they're up to, it's pretty sick. They really are trying to be gods. Yeah, times have changed!

Okay, I can agree with most of what you're saying. However, I don't think anything was specifically lost in the "garden" except the innocence of the people involved. In my opinions, humans have always been capable of cruelty and destruction, but this doesn't make them "flawed". It simply makes them capable of making their own decisions, controllers of their own destinies. We don't need the "fear" of God to counter our preexisting destructive capabilities; we simply have to manifest our higher being, which can be emulated through our conscience, our natural ability to determine right from wrong. By manifesting the righteous qualities inherent in our higher "self", we can be proper judges of what is right and wrong and decide not to murder people, not to steal, not to commit adultery, etc.

Do I agree with transhumanism? No, I don't. However, I do understand their idea of striving to become better than what they are. Do I believe that a human is physically capable of attaining natural immortality? No. However, the desire for immortality has been expressed in humans since the origin of our species. Those guys are wrong in wanting it, nor are they wrong for attempting to attain it. They are, in my opinion, wrong, though, in some of the methods they've used to go about it.

3. Christians. I agree with you again. They see Christ as "the" perfect khalifa, but err regarding their position of exclusivity. Back to metaphysics, the relative is a multiplicity. Only God is exclusive Unity. So no manifested being in a particular time and space can ever be totally exclusive. Some early sects of Christianity believed that Jesus was never a man, but an apparition of pure spirit. This seems to solve the problem, but does so by making Christ a pure archetype, consequently stripping him of all individuality. Sometimes the new-agers will talk about this as "Christ-consiousness". Thanks to Al-Qur'an we know Jesus was really a man. He ate food. Therefore he must be "a" perfect khalifa among others. Still, I believe we should humble ourselves before the prophets.

Yes, I agree with this completely. Great points too, by the way... 

[abdullah_m]

Peace Ahmad.

The earth is an apple on the cosmic tree of life forms.
You see the apple as still becoming ripe.
I see the apple as rotting on the ground.

Both views are valid. 

Now, do you believe that a person, or a group of humans, can reflect these qualities? And, if he does, can he also become a "god", i.e. a human manifestation of Allah?

Why not? But as long as he/they are not worshipped.

Remember where the Qualities come from.

[Ahmad Bilal]

The earth is an apple on the cosmic tree of life forms.
You see the apple as still becoming ripe.
I see the apple as rotting on the ground.

Both views are valid. 

Indeed, I agree! 

Why not? But as long as he/they are not worshipped.

Remember where the Qualities come from.

Of course! Again, I totally agree! We shouldn't offer "worship" (or exclusive service) to anyone except the divine creator, Who's essence dwells within all of us. Instead, we should strive to mimick the Creator, "God". In a sense, Allah can be viewed as a universal "Sun" - although everything within our solar system's cipher orbits around the sun, the sun is still WITHIN the universe and the solar system, the highest/most vital part of it. Similarly, we follow this same universal law and order. We "orbit" God, or highly revere (or worship) Him; yet, He is still the highest part of us, allowing His light (guidance) to shine within us and reflect upon everyone else around us.

Peace!

[abdullah_m]

In a sense, Allah can be viewed as a universal "Sun" - although everything within our solar system's cipher orbits around the sun, the sun is still WITHIN the universe and the solar system, the highest/most vital part of it. Similarly, we follow this same universal law and order. We "orbit" God, or highly revere (or worship) Him; yet, He is still the highest part of us, allowing His light (guidance) to shine within us and reflect upon everyone else around us.

Brother, what an excellent analogy... reminds me also of the symbolism of people circling the Kaba.

walaykum salam wr wb

[Ahmad Bilal]

Brother, what an excellent analogy... reminds me also of the symbolism of people circling the Kaba.

Thanks, brother. And indeed, I didn't even think of the circling of the Ka'aba in Mecca, but I definately see how the two ideas can be tied together... Peace!

[Aladin Azra]

Ahmad Bilal, all,

Allah made the Assembly to be Exalted. El-mele' comes from the root which is understood to mean "to fill", and this word is mostly translated as "chiefs". If we think we can see that these "chiefs" are sort of a parliament, which has some number of seats and people filling/taking these seats are el-mele'.

El-`Alaa was used only twice with el-mele', in 37:8 and 38:69. As I said, Allah made this el-mele' to be el-`alaa by inspiring and teaching el-mele' directly. 38:69 is about Aadem and el-melaa'iket, and we know Allah's interaction with them. These el-melaa'iket, as I understand, were ruling class in pre-dynastic Egypt (so-called Dynasty 0), and they were inspired by Allah to rule as He taught them. This is why people in Egypt accepted their rulers as "god-given" for centuries (except in case of Akhanaton).

I think that 37:8 is about any society which has chiefs inspired by Allah or helping them in any direct way, as in 9:40 لَا تَحْزَنْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَنَا, where innAllahe me`anaa (Allah is also among us) made 2 to be 3 (assembly).

We cannot see Allah and we cannot detect Him anyhow. We can detect manifestations of His names. We cannot see love, for example, but we can detect love's owner acts. Allah owns His names. These names are plural and whenever He uses plural for Himself it's because of plurality of names used in the context.

If some judge judges according to his job (rules) only - he's judge, but if he uses his intellect, his moral guides, his compassion, etc., then he's more then a judge.

[perrywest29]

What I am about to say might seem controversial but it's only a thought and my own opinion so judge with your own intellect.
I think what you said about God being one as many makes sense. God's names refer to perticular attributes but it also resembles the good old paganism. In fact if you take the whole quran and than it seems like there are 99(even more than that) attributes are like individual gods. That's what the old pagans got it wrong. The entire quran emohasises on A being that is named "Allah" as one but than we see he has 99 other names. Now lets say a person only calls god by al rahman. Another guy calls him al rahim. Without context it seems they are calling two different gods. But its two aspects of the same ineffable being put into words. But what actually means to be "One"? Does god has a body that is sepreate from all of existance hence he is "one"? Lets say I cut up my arm and ship it to antertica. But i still have control over that arm and i can do exactly what i want to do with that arm despite being seprate. My question is is the arm a seperate entity? Am i two because my arm is seperated by space? If i give my arm the ability to think and it doesnt know where it came from it might question do i have a free will or what is it's purpose. But since i am the one pulling the strings than the arm is never seperated. All of my limbs and organs make up who i am and i am one. Now lets say you who is reading. What if i download your consciousness into my head. Than are two or one? We have two different opinions. But this is a real life example where people have multiple identity disorder. They have different opinions within the same body. So is that "one". My conclusion is What we call the very ground of being "god"(i tend to avoid this word because it pops up like a person having a body sitting on a throne which is unfitting for this wonderfull presence") has different aspects all at the same time. In human understanding it would be like al rahman and al gaffar are two seperate gods. Al rahman the god of love because that's the very source of love and al gaffar the god of mercy. But they are infact just two qualities of the same being. Hence the line no god but "allah". The confusion arises from the meaning of the name. What is the eaxct meaning of "allah" it can't be al-ilah. Because the sentence doesn't add any meaning. No doudt "allah" has a different meaning that i wonder even muhammad knew. If he did he probaly interpreted as al-ilah or kept secret because normal sober mind cannot comprehend comlicated things. But like i said it can be something simple like Al-La-Hu. The word Al automatically comes to our mind as "the" but it has a secret meaning in wikitionary written differently there is another Al that means "family" or related to "return". Than the word could stand for "Al-La-Hu"= Return to "Hu". "Hu" is all over the quran where we are told " Hu is al rahman", "hu is al rahim" etc. So Hu coukd refer to just a indicator of an indescribable being who has these qualities and there really is no God but a Home where we will return.And in that Home are all of them "99 and more names" are "One". Even i am not qualified enough to say what this means. Maybe it means unity of all of those different aspects. Than whole of creation is "One" there for it gives the meaning "Allahu" is all-encompassing(containing everything) a whole different meaning. Also that could be a fitting reason that there are terms like "high assembly" and using the pronoun "we" and even the word "Allahumma" that is used to conventionally mean O Allah. But i don't get how -umma is translated to "O" it litterally is a plural signifier "Allahumma" literally means they allah. But they allah is "One" somehow. And there's no such thing as royal we. If the quran is directly gods word than it should be only "I" used. But thinking differently makes sense. "We" is "One". That's all i can come up with. But at the end of the day trying to understand what god is or isn't will not get us anywhere. It's like trying to describe colours to a blind person. We should just focus on living a good life instead. And The infinitely loving God is definitely not a toddler that "He/she" will punish you for the wrong idea of him/her. The conventional islam uses fear tactics to keep you in line to he controlled by corrupt muslim leaders for conquest. And "Islam" really isn't a religion it's a way of living peacefully.