From: johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Subject: Re: Islamic stories...
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 03:23:04 GMT

In article <la7rbsINNt7c@pollux.usc.edu> aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed  
Abd-Allah) writes:
> ->Article 68194 of talk.religion.misc:
> ->From: johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)

    (Disputing the six vs. eight day creation)
     [...some stuff deleted...] 
 
> ->    [41:9]--from Dawood:
> ->    Say: 'Do you indeed disbelieve in Him who created
> ->    the earth in two days? And do you make other gods
> ->    his equals? The Lord of the Universe is He.'
> ->
> ->     IMO, this verse asserts that the earth was created by God in two  
> ->days. Straightforward. Verse 41:10 [Dawood] then reads:
> 
> Correct - or to be precise, I agree :-)
> 
> ->    [41:10]
> ->    He set upon the earth mountains towering high above
> ->    it. He pronounced his blessing upon it, and in four
> ->    days provided it with sustenance for all alike.
> ->
> ->     IMO, this verse is a continuation of 41:9, i.e. after God creates  
the  
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> First, you are relying here strictly on your opinion, by your own  
admission.

   True (whose opinion would it be, if not mine?), otherwise I would have  
used a more majesterial tone, like "Jinn and men, this verse is a  
continuation of 41:9, ..."  :-)

> Second, later on in your article, you point to the word 'then' in  
[41:11]
> as indicative of a sequence of actions.  Here, in verse [41:10], this
> word is missing.  There is nothing in [41:9-10] which conclusively ties
> the two verses as serial events.  Muslim scholars understand verse  
[41:10]
> to be a more 'detailed' exposition of the earth's formation, and include
> the two days of verse [41:9] as part of the four in [41:10].  That is  
their
> understanding.

   I agree that nothing conclusively ties [41:9-10] together as serial  
events, i.e. there is no phrase saying something like "And after He  
finished creating the earth, He set upon the earth ... in four days ..." I  
do think that the assertion that [41:9-10] must therefore describe events  
overlapping in time is rather shaky, however. Here's why. Firstly, there  
is no phrase here that says something like "And as He was creating the  
earth, He set upon the earth ... in four days ..." If there was, then  
clearly all the events would overlap in time, and there would be no  
dispute. Secondly, since there is no such phrase, one is then forced to  
ascertain the most plausible meaning of what is now an ambiguous passage.  
When this occurs, I think that applying Occam's razor is a good approach,  
i.e. one should consider the simplest and most straightforward  
interpretation as being the most plausible. So, if [41:10] really is a  
more detailed exposition of the earth's formation (which [41:10] tells us  
really took four days, not two), then the statement in [41:9] 'Do you  
indeed disbelieve in Him who created the earth in two days?' is  
unnecessary and, if not altogether false, easily leads to confusion.  
Presumably God is not one to sow confusion among the faithful. On the  
other hand, interpreting [41:9-10] as a description of serial events (the  
simpler interpretation) avoids confusion as well as any question of  
unnecessary phrases. IMO, the reason those Muslim scholars understand  
[41:10] to be a more detailed exposition of the earth's formation (the  
more complex interpretation) has to do with their need to harmonize  
[41:9-12] with [10:3], [11:7], and [7:54], based on certain premises they  
hold wrt God, God's revelations to humanity, and the Koran. I will explain  
this momentarily.    
 
> Let me tell you what I honestly feel: these three verses do not give a  
strict
> sequence of actions - explicitly at least.  However, implicitly, it  
would be
> easy for someone to come along and link all three as you have.  I myself  
once
> did.  But the bottom line is that this is not what the verses say.  How  
then,
> to resolve the possible confusion or the 'ambiguity' (though I believe  
there
> is a reason why God placed these verses the way they are)?  The answer  
lies
> in what I've posted before: the Qur'an is its own best commentary.   
Since it
> is elsewhere stated that six days is the total, then so be it.

   Explicitly these verses don't conclusively demonstrate either  
possibility (parallel or sequential). As I said above, that leaves trying  
to determine the most plausible meaning.  
 
> -> Verses 41:11-12 [Dawood] then say:
> ->
> ->    [41:11-12]
> ->    Then, turning to the sky, which was but a cloud of
>       ^^^^
> 
> One last note: the arabic word "thumma" has two meanings - "then" and
> "moreover" (Hans Wehr Arabic English Dictionary).  The second meaning
> was chosen in Asad's and Ali's translation - they understood this verse
> to be in parallel with the above two (ie heavens and earth creation
> sequences occuring in parallel).

   I tried to get a copy of Ali's translation, but for the moment, one is  
unavailable. I did check two other translations, Pickthall's and Shakir's,  
and both of them translate that word as "then", not "moreover". I don't  
think that you or I can go much further on this particular point without  
looking at the respective notes taken by each of the five translators and  
seeing if they wrote down their reasons for choosing either "then" or  
"moreover".   
 
> ->    vapor, He said to it and to the earth: 'Come forward
> ->    both, willingly or perforce.'
> ->    'We will come willingly,' they answered. In two days
> ->    He formed the sky into seven heavens, and to each
> ->    heaven He assigned its task. We decked the lowest
> ->    heaven with brilliant stars and guardian comets. Such
> ->    is the design of the Mighty One, the All-knowing.
> ->

    [...some stuff deleted...]
        
> -> ...as I read 41:9-12, I see a sequence of events, one  
> -> following the other, rather than several events occurring
> -> simultaneously.    
> 
> But to read them as simultaneous actions is certainly possible.  And  
since
> these verses are not the sum and total of the Qur'an, you must look 
> elsewhere to settle the possible confusion.

   No dispute here. Looking at other parts of the Koran to try to resolve  
an ambiguity is perfectly legitimate. I do it myself with the Gospel.

    [...some stuff deleted...]
 
> Does Allah imply anywhere in
> the Qur'an of SIMULTANEITY between various actions during creation?
> Consult your copy of the Qur'an:
> ->> 
> ->> 	[79:27-30]
> ->> 	Are you the more difficult to create or is it the
> ->> 	sky above?  Allah has built it: On high has He raised
> ->> 	its canopy, and He has given it order and perfection;
> ->> 	He did make dark its night, and He brought out its light.
> ->> 	And earth, after that, did He spread out.
> ->> 
>     The earth was in existence as the sky was being formed according to
>     this verse.  Only after the actions described above had taken place
>     did God 'spread out' or extend the surface of the earth.  The 
>     implication is that certain stages of creation of the earth and
>     the heavens took place concurrently.
> ->
> ->     OK, Dawood's translation of 79:27-30 reads as follows:
> ->
> ->     [79:27-30]
> ->     Are you harder to create than the heaven which He has
> ->     built? He raised it high and fashioned it, giving 
> ->     darkness to its night and brightness to its day. After
> ->     that He spread the earth,

         and continuing

> ->     [79:31-34?]
> ->     and, drawing water from its depth, brought forth its
> ->     pastures. He set down the mountains, for you and for
> ->     your cattle to delight in.
> ->
> ->     I don't think that your conclusions follow from the text, Ahmed.  
IMO,  
> ->verses 79:27-29 discuss the formation of the heaven. Since these  
verses  
> ->speak of night and day, I think that it's safe to assume that this is  
the  
> ->"lowest" heaven described in 41:12. After this heaven is finished,  
verse  
> 
> Actually, I would strongly disagree there: I am in the midst of my own  
research
> into the distinctions made between 'heavens', 'lowest heaven' and 'seven 
> heavens'.  The context in this verse does not indicate whether it is the 
> lowest heaven in question - my guess is no.

   I'm curious as to why you think this is not the lowest heaven. When  
you've finished your research, please tell me. I'm interested.

    [...some stuff deleted...]
 
> -> But I don't get any sense  
> ->from these verses that the building of the "lowest" heaven and the  
> ->spreading out of the earth are occurring concurrently. Perhaps you are  
> 
> Look at verse [79:30] carefully.  God used the words "and after that" or
> in Arabic "ba'da dhalik".  This has only one meaning, unlike "thumma".
> This most certainly does strongly imply a concurrency between the
> formation of the earth and the 'heavens' since as you note above, one
> spreads out something which is already there.

   OK, what I mean is this. I think that the phrase "and after that"  
refers to the building of the heaven, i.e. after building the heaven, God  
spread out the earth. God completes the task of building the heaven, and  
then proceeds to spread out the earth. Sequential, not concurrent. Also,  
there is nothing said here explicitly about the initial formation of the  
earth (which is spread out after the building of the heaven, according to  
these verses). All these verses say is that God built the heaven, and  
after that, spread out the earth. These verses are silent about when the  
earth's initial formation occurred; consequently, one cannot conclude from  
these verses that the earth's initial formation (before the spreading out)  
took place concurrently with the building of the heaven.    
 
    [...some stuff deleted...]
 
> ->     What seems far more serious, however, are the implications of  
verses  
> ->79:31-34?. It appears from these verses that at least some of the  
> ->provisioning, as well as the setting down of the mountains upon the  
earth,  
> ->are performed _after_ the building of the "lowest" heaven. This  
appears to  
> ->_reverse_ the order laid out in 41:9-12. Another contradiction,  
perhaps?
> 
> Actually, that would seem to be strong evidence that "thumma" in verse
> [41:11] means "moreover" and not "then".  Otherwise, Dawood's  
translation
> creates a contradiction which does not exist.

   Hey, I think I have the verse numbering right now. It is [79:31-33].  
Pickthall and Shakir (the only other translations I currently have access  
to) translate [79:27-33] similarly to Dawood, i.e. the meaning is the same  
(I will provide the quotes if necessary). You seem to be claiming that if  
the order of creation appears to be reversed in the two sets of verses,  
this strongly suggests (proves?) that the beginning of [41:11] is  
"moreover" not "then". I'm not going to reject this line of reasoning out  
of hand, given the ambiguities in [41:10-11]. I just want to make the  
comment that one must be careful in taking this line, because it can  
result in a false harmonization of contradictory statements, thereby  
bringing one further away from, rather than towards, the truth.  
Unfortunately, without access to all five translators' notes, I'm not sure  
that we can fully resolve the "thumma" controversy, Ahmed.
At any rate, you have not convinced me as to concurrence. As I read  
[41:9-12] and [79:27-33], I see the events occurring in series, not in  
parallel.  
 
> [stuff deleted]
> 
> ->johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu
> 
> What I have tried to say here may not be acceptable to you - most  
especially
> if you do not speak Arabic.  However, I believe that an understanding of 
> Arabic is not necessary to understand these three verses - just someone  
to
> remind you that this is one case where more than one  
translation/interpretation
> helps.  If one reads these verses your way, a contradiction arises in at  
least
> two places by your analysis.  Your way involves some assumptions,  
however,
> which are NOT borne out conclusively by the Arabic text (it helps to  
have more
> then one translation, by the way).  I believe one Mr. William Hamblin  
posted
> a few days ago saying that he saw no contradiction - and then he cited  
some
> of the Arabic.  Perhaps he and other nonMuslims who know Arabic can post  
a
> critique of these verses.

   Using more than one translation helps a lot, particularly for what we  
are now doing. The comment that I made several posts back about one good,  
literal translation being sufficient was meant in the context of a  
"starting point". Once one gets into a serious debate, then additional  
translations become advisable. Actually, I don't mind your quoting of an  
Arabic word when it's important, as long as it's not used as part of an  
"argument from awe". "Arguments from awe" carry little weight with me. 
   I agree that my way of reading the verses involves some assumptions  
that I hold to be true. But everyone's way of reading anything involves  
some assumptions, as you'll see in a moment.  
 
> As to reading it the way Muslim scholars have read it, note that they  
justify
> their interpretation with other parts of the Qur'an.  You see the
> other verses saying "six days" presenting a contradiction IF you make
> certain assumptions about [41:9-12]; they see these other verses ("six  
days")
> as clarifying [41:9-12] - with no assumptions.
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     Here you are simply incorrect, Ahmed. Muslim scholars most certainly  
_do_ approach the Koran with certain key assumptions, to whit:
     
     (1) It is impossible for the Truth to be self-contradictory
     
     (2) All of God's revelations to humanity are true
     
     (3) Being true, it is impossible for any of God's revelations to  
humanity to be self-contradictory
     
     (4) All of God's revelations to humanity were delivered to Muhammed  
(this does not mean that they were delivered _only_ to Muhammed, just that  
they were at least delivered to him)
     
     (5) The Koran is the uncorrupted, complete transcription of all of  
God's revelations to humanity, delivered to Muhammed
     
     Because Muslim scholars hold these to be true assumptions (as indeed  
they must, otherwise they would not be Muslim, or at least not traditional  
Muslim), a Muslim scholar cannot accept the possibility of a contradiction  
in the Koran. If a Muslim scholar does find a contradiction in the Koran,  
then since the assumptions are not open to debate, a way _must_ be found  
to try and harmonize the contradiction with other verses in the Koran.  
This does not mean that the Muslim scholars are in any way dishonest. But  
it is true that they look at the Koran in a certain way, and approach it  
with certain key assumptions, assumptions that preclude their being able  
to view it in a purely objective manner.

---------------

     I want to make a few additional comments. The last couple of posts  
have been devoted to the issue of creation and the six day vs. eight day  
controversy. This has left me with a mild case of vertigo, meaning that  
it's definitely time for a reality check. Being an evolutionary  
biologist/chemist, it is _very_ clear to me that earth and the heavens  
were most certainly _not_ created in either six days or eight days, but  
over a period of several billion years. Thus [41:9-12], [10:3], [11:7],  
and [7:54] are in contradiction with the facts of reality (so is Genesis  
1, btw). Whenever I find a contradiction, I always try to check my  
premises. In light of this, Muslim scholars may want to check some of  
their premises as well.    
  
> Ahmed Abd-Allah

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu