The fruits He made in pairs. (13:3)

[mclinkin94]

I also wanted to add:

Why didn't Allah say "fruits are created in pairs, male and female"? That would be a scientific error--there is no such thing as a male or female strawberry. But Allah avoided saying that and instead said "INSIDE" them, there is a double pairing. This specificity and carefulness of the Quran is very telling as to who the author of the Quran is.

[jkhan]

Brother...

It's hard to get kullu means part... Kullu can only mean all or each.. When added min kullu it can only mean from all or from each...
I went through min kullu verses it clearly indicate within the context of all or each...
Even the couple of example you furnished cabnot be taken as part of.. Context of the verse or intention and subject is key...
If I say I gave from all I have to you...it does mean all.. Not leaving anything apart but what is the subject... What did I give.. Money... Money is what I gave all not any other thing...
Even 3:07 is talking Bout a particular word.. But it talks about verses (aya)  so what you connect is not so adhering... Here only a word or two.. That also clear Arabic words kullu and min..

In my understanding 13:3 could mean that God created all zamara.. Then ja'ala made all of them genders Zawjain (genders male female).. I mean each zamara is both male and female..  Out of it two..
I don't how logical with science but that's what I get from the verse.. Science can change but verse won't..
So in the case of Zamarath quantity is two but when it comes to animal qty is 4..
That's my take..

[mclinkin94]

Brother...

It's hard to get kullu means part... Kullu can only mean all or each.. When added min kullu it can only mean from all or from each...

No, I think you are restricting the verse to one interpretation, while ignoring the others.

The verse did not say "kullu zamara" (all fruits), which Allah could've said simply, but he chose to be very specific and Allah added "min" to that verse to say "min kullu zamara".

That means: "of [all the fruits]" or "some of [all the fruits]". The word "min" can mean 'of', 'from', 'some of', 'some from'.

So when you say, some from the set of all the fruits, you are saying something that carries a connotation of high magnitude while at the same time not necessarily saying "every single one".

Imagine the set of [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] and I tell you "pick some of the numbers from all the set" or "pick numbers from the whole set"--that doesn't necessarily mean pick every single number. Likewise "min kullu zamara" does not mean "every single fruit", it means "of every fruit" or "some of every fruit" or "some of all the fruits".

In English, I can say "of all the fruits, some of them are sweet" or "of all the fruits, are sweet ones". The same in Arabic. Allah used the word "min kullu" and not just "kullu".

I went through min kullu verses it clearly indicate within the context of all or each...

First, I think you took the wrong approach because you are thinking we need verses from the Quran to reduce the ambiguity. Sometimes, the Quran may not explain some of its ambiguities...and we are left with those ambiguities. And we already know that "min kullu" can mean those 2 different things. If they can mean those things, then they can mean those things That alone is sufficient.

Even the couple of example you furnished cabnot be taken as part of.. Context of the verse or intention and subject is key...
If I say I gave from all I have to you...it does mean all.. Not leaving anything apart but what is the subject... What did I give.. Money... Money is what I gave all not any other thing...

Sure, that Dhul Qarnayn verse is just one I picked randomly. I'm sure I can search for many, but why do such a thing after what I just explained above? Also why did you forget about Quran 39:27? This tells us specifically that "min Kullu" cannot always mean "every single one", but rather means "from the set of all ones". Again, Allah could have just said "we have given you "kullu" examples", but he didn't, he said "min kullu" indicating he only gave us examples from [the set of all examples].

But even then, the assumption that we need a Quranic verse to remove the ambiguity is non-sequitur. If something can be understood as X, Y or Z, then it can be understood as X, Y, or Z, even if the Quran did not specify which! Don't fall for this trap.

Even 3:07 is talking Bout a particular word.. But it talks about verses (aya)  so what you connect is not so adhering... Here only a word or two.. That also clear Arabic words kullu and min..

No, it's far more complicated than that! There could be ambiguities within large verses. Some verses are super large and they have phrases in them that are ambiguous.

If I say "there are medical conditions which present with mild pain and others with severe pain", I am not excluding the fact there are medical conditions with moderate pain nor am I excluding medical conditions with alternating bouts of mild and severe pain. Such an exclusion is not stated in that statement--its only the presumption of the reader that leads them to that conclusion. Likewise, if I tell you there are sentences in this article with big words and others with small words--that doesn't exclude sentences with both big words and small words. Likewise, if a professor tells you that in your essay there are sentences that are well written and others, poorly written--it doesn't mean there aren't sentences with both well written and poorly written components. Again, such an exclusion is only perceived through the assumption of the reader. So again, this verse (3:7) does not exclude the existence of verses which have both ambiguous and unambiguous elements within it.

From: http://www.answeringislamicskeptics.com/approach-to-quran-understanding.html

In my understanding 13:3 could mean that God created all zamara.. Then ja'ala made all of them genders Zawjain (genders male female).. I mean each zamara is both male and female..  Out of it two.. 

That's not what the verse said. Word for word here is what it said:

 وَمِنْ كُلِّ الثَّمَرَاتِ جَعَلَ فِيهَا زَوْجَيْنِ اثْنَيْنِ
"From All The Fruits, He Made inside it two mates"

So inside the fruits are two mates. The fruits themselves are not two mates, but inside them are two mates. That is literally what this verse is saying. And we find out that indeed there are double matings inside the fruits (and these are in their seeds!).

And note, because "min" also means "some of", that verse above can be rendered word-for-word: "some of all the fruits, he made inside it two mates".

I don't how logical with science but that's what I get from the verse.. Science can change but verse won't..

If a verse is worded in such a very specific weird way that happens to true to the science--that is VERY significant. The verse above is worded very carefully, and this carefulness and specificity is a sign for us.

Why didn't Allah say "fruits are created in pairs, male and female"? That would be a scientific error--there is no such thing as a male or female strawberry. But Allah avoided saying that and instead said "INSIDE" them, there is a double pairing. This specificity and carefulness of the Quran is very telling as to who the author of the Quran is.

I do understand that science is changing, but this is not just science, it is an observation. With respect to double fertilization, that is not something like cosmology or social science where there is a lot of guessing, modeling, experimenting and rudimentary analysis, this is not an experiment, it is an observation--you can literally see it under a microscope! You can literally observe it. It's not really science, it's just observation at this point. It's kind of like observing the heart pumping blood, sure it is a science, but it's really more of an observation.

So in the case of Zamarath quantity is two but when it comes to animal qty is 4..
That's my take..

That is an inconsistent translation. It seems that you've just chosen to use the same exact phrase in different ways without justification.

[jkhan]

No, I think you are restricting the verse to one interpretation, while ignoring the others.

The verse did not say "kullu zamara" (all fruits), which Allah could've said simply, but he chose to be very specific and Allah added "min" to that verse to say "min kullu zamara".

That means: "of [all the fruits]" or "some of [all the fruits]". The word "min" can mean 'of', 'from', 'some of', 'some from'.

So when you say, some from the set of all the fruits, you are saying something that carries a connotation of high magnitude while at the same time not necessarily saying "every single one".

Imagine the set of [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] and I tell you "pick some of the numbers from all the set" or "pick numbers from the whole set"--that doesn't necessarily mean pick every single number. Likewise "min kullu zamara" does not mean "every single fruit", it means "of every fruit" or "some of every fruit" or "some of all the fruits".

In English, I can say "of all the fruits, some of them are sweet" or "of all the fruits, are sweet ones". The same in Arabic. Allah used the word "min kullu" and not just "kullu".

First, I think you took the wrong approach because you are thinking we need verses from the Quran to reduce the ambiguity. Sometimes, the Quran may not explain some of its ambiguities...and we are left with those ambiguities. And we already know that "min kullu" can mean those 2 different things. If they can mean those things, then they can mean those things That alone is sufficient.

Sure, that Dhul Qarnayn verse is just one I picked randomly. I'm sure I can search for many, but why do such a thing after what I just explained above? Also why did you forget about Quran 39:27? This tells us specifically that "min Kullu" cannot always mean "every single one", but rather means "from the set of all ones". Again, Allah could have just said "we have given you "kullu" examples", but he didn't, he said "min kullu" indicating he only gave us examples from [the set of all examples].

But even then, the assumption that we need a Quranic verse to remove the ambiguity is non-sequitur. If something can be understood as X, Y or Z, then it can be understood as X, Y, or Z, even if the Quran did not specify which! Don't fall for this trap.

No, it's far more complicated than that! There could be ambiguities within large verses. Some verses are super large and they have phrases in them that are ambiguous.

If I say "there are medical conditions which present with mild pain and others with severe pain", I am not excluding the fact there are medical conditions with moderate pain nor am I excluding medical conditions with alternating bouts of mild and severe pain. Such an exclusion is not stated in that statement--its only the presumption of the reader that leads them to that conclusion. Likewise, if I tell you there are sentences in this article with big words and others with small words--that doesn't exclude sentences with both big words and small words. Likewise, if a professor tells you that in your essay there are sentences that are well written and others, poorly written--it doesn't mean there aren't sentences with both well written and poorly written components. Again, such an exclusion is only perceived through the assumption of the reader. So again, this verse (3:7) does not exclude the existence of verses which have both ambiguous and unambiguous elements within it.

From: http://www.answeringislamicskeptics.com/approach-to-quran-understanding.html

That's not what the verse said. Word for word here is what it said:

 وَمِنْ كُلِّ الثَّمَرَاتِ جَعَلَ فِيهَا زَوْجَيْنِ اثْنَيْنِ
"From All The Fruits, He Made inside it two mates"

So inside the fruits are two mates. The fruits themselves are not two mates, but inside them are two mates. That is literally what this verse is saying. And we find out that indeed there are double matings inside the fruits (and these are in their seeds!).

And note, because "min" also means "some of", that verse above can be rendered word-for-word: "some of all the fruits, he made inside it two mates".

If a verse is worded in such a very specific weird way that happens to true to the science--that is VERY significant. The verse above is worded very carefully, and this carefulness and specificity is a sign for us.

Why didn't Allah say "fruits are created in pairs, male and female"? That would be a scientific error--there is no such thing as a male or female strawberry. But Allah avoided saying that and instead said "INSIDE" them, there is a double pairing. This specificity and carefulness of the Quran is very telling as to who the author of the Quran is.

I do understand that science is changing, but this is not just science, it is an observation. With respect to double fertilization, that is not something like cosmology or social science where there is a lot of guessing, modeling, experimenting and rudimentary analysis, this is not an experiment, it is an observation--you can literally see it under a microscope! You can literally observe it. It's not really science, it's just observation at this point. It's kind of like observing the heart pumping blood, sure it is a science, but it's really more of an observation.

That is an inconsistent translation. It seems that you've just chosen to use the same exact phrase in different ways without justification.

Brother peace..

I do anticipate that you have patience  with my repeated concerns...

Note pls 3:07 is clearly stated verses are (Muthashabih) not words or phrases.. With words verses form.. But other verses are manifest it says.. So in manifest verses also words form it.. Nothing will make a verse muthashaabih coz of min or kullu.. Anyway it further says only those whose hearts perversity follows muthashaabih.. So do you consider this verse 13:3 a muthashabih?  So why explain it if so?  It seems like believers only believe it not trying to explain the verses of muthashaabih... Unless the verse 3:07 speak differently.. Is the verse 3:07 itself muthashaabih?  Lol.. For me 13:3 is not muthashaabih.. Who will decide muthashaabih and manifest?  That's an issue..

Okay.. Let's turn to 13:03... Why you take feeha as 'inside it' rather than in it...
What I say is each zhamarath in it is genders.. For example apple,  in apple genders/zawjain (male and female) not male or female.. So every zhamarath in its own possesses the gender of male and female..

Note the below verse for our concerns  ..
16:11 "He causes to grow for you thereby the crops, olives, palm trees, grapevines, and from all the fruits (min kullu zhamarath) . Indeed in that is a sign for a people who give thought.

Already some of the examples furnished in the verse and further says min kullu zhamarath.. Would you take it 'from some of'..

By the way zhamarath for me not mere fruits.. But all edible plants and  produce of all plants (fruits, veg, nuts etc etc except animals and animal products )

Does every fruit has a seed? Just asking.. How do I know, while I don't have any knowledge of every fruit that exist on this earth?

Do you notice the difference in 14:37 where Ibrahim ask to provide from the zamarth ... He did really say some of the zamarath not all.. Clearly omitted kullu.. What if the verse included kullu.. Does it still mean some of the zamarath?

[mclinkin94]

Brother peace..
I do anticipate that you have patience  with my repeated concerns... 

Absolutely! I hope that you find insight in my responses. Although, given some life obligations I may not always respond on time.

Note pls 3:07 is clearly stated verses are (Muthashabih) not words or phrases.. With words verses form.. But other verses are manifest it says.. So in manifest verses also words form it.. Nothing will make a verse muthashaabih coz of min or kullu.. Anyway it further says only those whose hearts perversity follows muthashaabih.. So do you consider this verse 13:3 a muthashabih?  So why explain it if so?  It seems like believers only believe it not trying to explain the verses of muthashaabih... Unless the verse 3:07 speak differently.. Is the verse 3:07 itself muthashaabih?  Lol..

I would disagree with your understanding of Quran 3:7. This verse does not explicitly rule out ambiguities within some verses. Some verses can have both ambiguous and unambiguous elements. Quran 3:7 is not restricted to whole verses. As I said earlier: if a professor tells you some sentences are poorly written and others, well written---your professor is not excluding the existence of sentences with poorly written and well written phrases. Such an exclusion is only an assumption you make. The same is true in 3:7, you are assuming that it excludes ambiguity in verses, but the verse does not explicitly say this. Parts of verses can be muthashaabih and parts can be manifest. So yes, a part of a verse (including a part of 3:7) can be muthashaabih and another part (including a part of 3:7) can be manifest. It depends on the verse!

Now, I think you misunderstand "those who have perversity in their hearts follow what is muthashaabih". I want to address this here:

 It is commonly claimed that the Quran is teaching us to not think about the ambiguous verses. However, when we closely examine 3:7, we do not see such an explicit command:

"...Then as for those in whose hearts (qulubihim) is perversity (zayghun), so they follow what is 'tashabaha' (obscure, unclear) of it seeking discord/disagreement (fitna) and seeking its interpretation (tawil)..."

This verse is saying to not pursue the ambiguities seeking discord and committing yourself to one interpretation when the verse is ambiguous. It is not saying "don't think about the ambiguities or try to understand it", it is saying, 'don't pursue the ambiguities with the intention of causing discord'. This is, in fact, what nonbelievers do--they take ambiguous verses and then they claim those verses definitively teach X, and then they show that X is a scientific error (or a contradiction with the Quran)--just as Allah warned us in 3:7! The non-believers time and time again (especially in Wiki-Islam and AnsweringIslam) take ambiguous verses as if they are unambiguous, and they restrict the interpretation of the ambiguous verse to one possible understanding, and then they claim the Quran is in error as a result--just as Allah warned us in 3:7!

As we see here, this verse is not commanding us to not recognize that a verse is ambiguous and recognize that it could be referring to different things--instead, it is commanding us to recognize the ambiguities within the Quran and not restrict the interpretation of those verses to only one thing when they are ambiguous and could mean either thing. So this verse doesn't mean don't pursue them, it means don't commit yourself to one interpretation of an ambiguous verse--it is telling you to recognize that verses can be ambiguous--to understand that there could be other meanings and not restrict it to only one.

  For me 13:3 is not muthashaabih.. Who will decide muthashaabih and manifest?  That's an issue.. 

Exactly! Quran 3:7 doesn't tell you how to recognize mutashaabih vs manifest. You recognize it by reading a verse and recognizing that it could mean something else--that is is possible it is referring to something else. And since the verse does not specify which meaning is the case, then the verse is ambiguous as to what it is saying.

Okay.. Let's turn to 13:03... Why you take feeha as 'inside it' rather than in it...
What I say is each zhamarath in it is genders.. For example apple,  in apple genders/zawjain (male and female) not male or female.. So every zhamarath in its own possesses the gender of male and female..

Yes, this is a good example of how this verse is "mutashaabih". You said  "feeha" can be taken as "in it" and "inside it". Both are possible understandings. You just chose "in it" and ignored that it could mean "inside it". What you did was exactly what Quran 3:7 warned us about--you decided to restrict its meaning to only one interpretation and ignore the other. I am not saying this verse definitively says "inside it" rather than "in it"--I'm saying it could be either!

I say that this verse is a miracle because Allah made it ambiguous to both satisfy 7th century dualistic dispositions, yet the verse was worded in such a weird way that also allows for such an interpretation to support modern dispositions! Only Allah would know exactly when to be ambiguous and yet even within the ambiguity, the other valid interpretation of the verse allows the verse to be perfectly agreeable with science (double fertilization). This verse was so perfectly written; it was so carefully written and it is a sign/evidence that it is from Allah. The only thing we can say to this is Subhanallah!

If the verse simply said "and the fruits are made in pairs, male and female". It would not be agreeable with science and it would be a scientific error. Yet Allah knew this and was able to word it in such a brilliant and careful way. How did Muhammad know to do this and word it this way? He didn't! It was Allah--such an amazing sign from Allah.

Note the below verse for our concerns  ..
16:11 "He causes to grow for you thereby the crops, olives, palm trees, grapevines, and from all the fruits (min kullu zhamarath) . Indeed in that is a sign for a people who give thought.

Already some of the examples furnished in the verse and further says min kullu zhamarath.. Would you take it 'from some of'..

Yes, I think it is possible that this verse you mentioned still means "some of/from all the fruits" and not just "all the fruits". If Allah wanted to say "all the fruits", he could've said "kullu zhamarath", but he put the word "min" in there to make it ambiguous as to whether he is saying "some of/from all the fruits" or "all the fruits". This allows for either understanding.

The universe is massive and there are many Earth like planets. Indeed there may be different kinds of fruit growing on those other planets. The Quran says there are many Earths too (See verse 65:12). Those other Earths can have different fruits not found in our Earth. 

Additionally, the Quran says in Jannah (heaven/paradise) there are fruits. That doesn't mean the fruits in Jannah are exactly the same as the ones on Earth, or that Earth has all the fruits that Jannah has. That is inconclusive.

[Quran 55:52]  In both of them are of every fruit, two pairs.

This verse's context is talking about heaven/paradise, not on Earth. And notice how this verse says the fruits in paradise are gendered. But when Allah was discussing the fruits on Earth, he was careful not to say this and instead said "inside them are 2 pairs". Again, I ask how did Muhammad know to conveniently say this? He didn't! It was Allah!

By the way zhamarath for me not mere fruits.. But all edible plants and  produce of all plants (fruits, veg, nuts etc etc except animals and animal products ). Does every fruit has a seed? Just asking.. How do I know, while I don't have any knowledge of every fruit that exist on this earth?

No, some fruits are seedless.

Do you notice the difference in 14:37 where Ibrahim ask to provide from the zamarth ... He did really say some of the zamarath not all.. Clearly omitted kullu.. What if the verse included kullu.. Does it still mean some of the zamarath?

I already mentioned in my previous post that:

"Zamarath" is different from "Kullu Zamarath" which is different from "min Kullu Zamarath".

When you just say "Zamarath", you are not asking for a lot. It carries a connotation of modest amount.

When you say "Kullu Zamarath", you are asking for ALL of them.

When you say "min Kullu Zamarath", you are asking for a lot. It carries a connotation of plentiful amounts. But it does not necessarily mean "every single Zamarath"--it can also mean "some from [all zamarath]". It allows for that ambiguity while carrying that connotation of greatness. This is an example of how Allah can appeal to 7th century dispositions without contradicting ours.

[jkhan]

Peace brother..

I am really impressed with your responses..
I wonder how come one be an atheist while with this much knowledge... May Allah save you from all evils of you and Jin and Men...

Btw.. I leave the readers to decide what could possibly right in this regard..
I honestly feel you explained within the book...

Glad I debated with you...hope benefited to readers... I end my questions from here leaving to the rest..

[good logic]

I agree brother jkhan.
mclinkin94 has answered using "the best explanation/context from all the verses",taking care of the precise words used in each verse.
The only thing that I disagree with is the following, quote:
"The universe is massive and there are many Earth like planets. Indeed there may be different kinds of fruit growing on those other planets. The Quran says there are many Earths too (See verse 65:12). Those other Earths can have different fruits not found in our Earth".

Although many other planets have been observed/found to exist,like our earth ,there is no evidence they have life /plants in them. One can only speculate.In fact Qoran specifically tells us that the earth was an exception planet that took "four days/periods" to prepare it for living.

In the case of the verse about Abraham asking for" Min Al Thamarat". Not all fruits/Thamarats are edible, Abraham was asking for those that are beneficial/edible. Hence it won t be all the fruits" Min.Kulli Al Thamarat".Some fruits benefit animals birds but can be harmful to humans like some enedible  berries

Really nice to see an examplary debate. Very useful.
GOD bless you both.
Peace.

[Iyyaka]

The Quran says there are many Earths too (See verse 65:12). Those other Earths can have different fruits not found in our Earth".

Salam,

for an understanding of verse [65:12] i suggest to read what Muhammad Asad said about (best explanations for me) :

Muhammad Asad (The Message Of Quran)
65:12 GOD is He who has created seven heavens and, like them, [the many aspects] of the earth...

http://quranix.org/65#12

peace

[good logic]

Peace Iyyaka.
You quoted me quoting from another post.i.e what you quoted was said by someone else.
Just wanted to let you know.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

[jkhan]

I agree brother jkhan.
mclinkin94 has answered using "the best explanation/context from all the verses",taking care of the precise words used in each verse.
The only thing that I disagree with is the following, quote:
"The universe is massive and there are many Earth like planets. Indeed there may be different kinds of fruit growing on those other planets. The Quran says there are many Earths too (See verse 65:12). Those other Earths can have different fruits not found in our Earth".

Although many other planets have been observed/found to exist,like our earth ,there is no evidence they have life /plants in them. One can only speculate.In fact Qoran specifically tells us that the earth was an exception planet that took "four days/periods" to prepare it for living.

In the case of the verse about Abraham asking for" Min Al Thamarat". Not all fruits/Thamarats are edible, Abraham was asking for those that are beneficial/edible. Hence it won t be all the fruits" Min.Kulli Al Thamarat".Some fruits benefit animals birds but can be harmful to humans like some enedible  berries

Really nice to see an examplary debate. Very useful.
GOD bless you both.
Peace.

Thank you good logic.. From my understanding of the Quran I think he presented the right meaning for 13:3... I am satisfied  on his explanation over my understanding...

Well..  65:12 is totally different subject so that I didn't mention anything about it.. Since he is a word by word clarification... Hope he would get the meaning of earth and heavens right one day... As you all know I am not a believer in universe OR spinning earth... But I do only understand within Quran earth is massive and stationary and heavens are above it in layers and all heavens are visible and the nearest (Dunya)  heaven is the extreme end of heaven well protected beyond that no entry... It is a ceiling it has doors... 65:12 never speaks of seven earth as of the current earth... 41:11-12 very clear God made only one Earth and out of smoky one heaven He turned it to seven layers and assignes each it's function... No seven earth...
Sorry... It is not a subject to speak about it.. God will true believers will understand God's real creation Earth and Heavens...
Peace...