Angels around the throne of Allah

[Pragmatist]

Obviously Allah has a material body.

If it's so "obvious" why do the vast majority of Muslims throughout history reject such a theory ? Why do they label such a view heretical?

Allah has a physical body that is perceivable for believers in the hereafter.

That believers perceive Allah (swt) in a form doesn't imply that He actually has a physical body. This is a visionary reality perceived by the eye of the heart. It's simply how He manifest himself to people and not a sign that he is limited to some specific physical form and location. Allah (swt) can manifest himself in an infinite variety of forms to our consciousness..

It definitely denotes to a throne in its physical sense. Otherwise, if you affix a different meaning to throne as dominion how are you going to reconcile the absurdity of Allah’s dominion being over the water?

Because the waters themselves also have a symbolic meaning. If you read a work that said " Your heart is a great ocean" would you say " how stupid... he doesn't have a large body of salt water in the physical organ responsible for pumping blood...etc.." Just as "heart is a great ocean" would bring to mind certain symbolic realities to a person educated in the language and tradition in which that work was written so would the word "throne" and "waters" in this instance in the Quran. The idea that this is a throne made of matter hovering over physical water isn't something I've even been introduced to in the various commentaries and such that I've read on the Quran. This is the first time I've even heard anyone make this claim.

For the same reason I suppose that most if not all Muslims think that the child molesting paedophile, liar, thief, warmonger , anti semite and misogynist Mohammad was "the BEST of men" and a "man for ALL time"

[charleslemartel]

Obviously Allah has a material body.

If it's so "obvious" why do the vast majority of Muslims throughout history reject such a theory ? Why do they label such a view heretical?

Because the vast majority of Muslims have perversity in their hearts as they seek hidden meanings in the clear verses of Quran. Are you aware of the verse 3:7?

Allah has a physical body that is perceivable for believers in the hereafter.

That believers perceive Allah (swt) in a form doesn't imply that He actually has a physical body. This is a visionary reality perceived by the eye of the heart. It's simply how He manifest himself to people and not a sign that he is limited to some specific physical form and location. Allah (swt) can manifest himself in an infinite variety of forms to our consciousness..

And how do you know that? Any verses from Quran to support your invention?

It definitely denotes to a throne in its physical sense. Otherwise, if you affix a different meaning to throne as dominion how are you going to reconcile the absurdity of Allah’s dominion being over the water?

Because the waters themselves also have a symbolic meaning.

Why every word in Quran has a symbolic meaning? What about your Allah's claim that Quran is clear and well explained?

Even if, just for argument's sake, symbolic meanings are conceded, how do you know what is the real meaning? Does it not shame you when you go on inventing meaning after meaning for perfectly simple words like water and throne?

Are you sure that Allah is not a symbolic word for Satan? If yes, why?

[KhaliL]

__________________

Obviously Allah has a material body.

If it's so "obvious" why do the vast majority of Muslims throughout history reject such a theory ? Why do they label such a view heretical?

Do you know about argumentum ad populum? This amounts to that fallacy hence is not a logically sound argument. If there were Muslims who refused to believe Allah has physical features, there were many Muslims to come up with the notion Allah has physical features. And both had scriptures with them to argue. I am with the same lot (Ibn Taimiyya being one among them) who argued Allah has physical features as represented by Quran. What about refuting it?

That believers perceive Allah (swt) in a form doesn't imply that He actually has a physical body. This is a visionary reality perceived by the eye of the heart. It's simply how He manifest himself to people and not a sign that he is limited to some specific physical form and location. Allah (swt) can manifest himself in an infinite variety of forms to our consciousness..

And your reasons to argue so..? Any back up sources? I brought the hadith in which it says “believers will perceive Allah as they perceive full-moon. Since the perceivers are human beings, the perception must be within the limit of human beings. That being said, Allah should manifest in a form perceivable to human beings. Our perception does not have extension to grasp the unlimited. That is why it is said Allah will be manifested like a full-moon.
Moreover, I can bring more hadiths to prove Allah has hands, eyes, feet etc.

Because the waters themselves also have a symbolic meaning. If you read a work that said " Your heart is a great ocean" would you say " how stupid... he doesn't have a large body of salt water in the physical organ responsible for pumping blood...etc.." Just as "heart is a great ocean" would bring to mind certain symbolic realities to a person educated in the language and tradition in which that work was written so would the word "throne" and "waters" in this instance in the Quran.

Symbolic…! Anything in Quran that is unpleasant to Muslims amount to being symbolic.., you bore me up dear.

What is symbolic in having rivers in paradise? What is symbolic in having these rivers gushing out of the throne of Allah? It is what Sahih Bukhari hadith tells us. I brought the hadith in my previous post. You mean all are symbolic? Well, then your Allah too is symbolic. There is nothing of that kind for you to believe in.

Would this work for you?

The idea that this is a throne made of matter hovering over physical water isn't something I've even been introduced to in the various commentaries and such that I've read on the Quran. This is the first time I've even heard anyone make this claim.

Huh… your lack of compliance to check sources is not my big concern. It is mentioned in Tabari that Allah’s throne is over waters. Moreover, there are many Sahih Hadiths to attest to this fact. I mean MANY.
Check your sources well. Your ignorance is not an excuse and I am least bothered of it.

Regards
KhaliL

[Aksel Ankersen]

hi man,
as i already adequatly explained in my other post, verses speaking of matters of the unseen must always be interpreted in the light of the explicit verses.
The throne and the kursi are not literal when used for Allah, because obviously He does not have a material body present in one place at a time. No word can be used for Him which implies transience, need, deficiency or want. He cannot be measured or compared by anything; He cannot be like people; He is not absent from anywhere, and He does not occupy a specific space. throne for example is generally accepted as being a symbol of allah's rule, power, command, wisdom, infinite knowledge etc

40:7"Those who bear (yahmiluna) the power and those around (hawlahu) Him celebrate the praise of their Lord and believe in Him and ask protection for those who believe.."

39:75"And you shall see the angels going round (hawli) about the throne glorifying the praise of their Lord; and judgment shall be given between them with justice.."

"hawla" is used in 39:75 to connote nearness, as in 27:8. "hamala" (to bear) in 40:7 also means to take upon oneself (the responsibility of something).
The angels bearing the Throne of Allah and being near it means that they are close creatures to Allah because of their important role in the execution of His will. On the day of resurrection, they will execute God's judgement on the people and all mankind will witness their nearness and submission to Allah's orders. These verses are of the mutashabihaat kind (allegorical) because they describe realities that we cannot fully grasp as they belong to the realm of the unseen. The veil of the unseen will be lifted from our eyes on the day of resurrection 50:22 and only then we will understand the "how" of these things such as the angels executing God's commands, bearing and being near to the Throne. But for the moment, these unseen realities are explained to us through images such as the use of the word "throne" which symbolizes in human psyche the majesty and rule of a mighty king.
These verses state also another important fact, even those angels that are so close to Allah and eager to execute His commands constantly praise their Rabb and bear witness to Him.

Good to see you back, we need Muslims to debate.

Your argument about the allegory of the angels near the throne might be valid, except that hawla ( حول ) used as a noun is something that surrounds the indicated object such as a fence, crowd or barrier. I.e. حول نهر النيل = (those things... boats, settlements etc.) "Along the Nile river". Or take the use of hawla in Koran:

ولقد اهلكنا ماحولكم من القرى وصرفنا الايات لعلهم يرجعون

"And certainly We destroyed the towns which are around you (ma hawlakum), and We repeat the communications that they might turn"

-al-Ahqaf verse 77.

Do you think the verse relates to towns near Makka and Madina? Not much to choose from. The obvious meaning is in the surrounding lands.

Or take the examples of hawla Khalil gave.

Angels are real if invisible beings according to Koran, for them to be stationed around a throne it too must be a physical thing, would you not say?

-Aksel

[Maersk]

What is this about Muslims? Are they so boxed in they cannot get out of the vice grip Christianity has on them they have to appeal to JESUS and Christians for an answer and help them solve Mystery of Islam.

Hello, this is the throne in HEAVEN, in the thereafter unlike the throne that is mentioned on this thread and in the Quran where you and Paedophile Modk can see.

Besides that there is also the throne the SUN and Moon prostrate to each night they go to sleep before they dare peek out for the next morning? Where do Bozo Muslims in Saudi Arabia, in Malaysia, in Nigeria, in UK think these throne is at? Is it on the underside of the planet EARTH? Anyway .. the SUN and Moon will be busy prostrating non- stop before Bozo Allah because at any moment in time there is always sunset and sunrise.

OK.. over to the idiots of Muslims, the same idiots who eat halal food, wrap themselves in rags, scream jihad, and cry like babies when Hamas babies get killed. Whatever for? Is it for the day Muslims sit on the throne themselves and give Allah crap?!!

[ishraqiyun]

If there were Muslims who refused to believe Allah has physical features, there were many Muslims to come up with the notion Allah has physical features. And both had scriptures with them to argue. I am with the same lot

if you consider the theory that Allah (swt) is a physical body to best fit the evidence of the hadith and Quran then you are certainly entitled to that opinion. To imply that it's some standard of Quranic orthodoxy that all Muslims need to obey is going a little to far though wouldn't you say? As a non-Muslim what exactly qualifies you to determine this issue for Muslims ?

Do you know about argumentum ad populum?

Generally something that is obvious is easy to see. That being the case the fact that majority of people ( a good deal of whom studied the text in depth) didn't notice this supposed reality would tend to imply that it wasn't really as obvious you imply. At most you could say " it was 'obvious' to a minority of Muslims".

Ibn Taimiyya being one among them)

He may very well have felt that way. He has no authority whatsoever within Shi'ite Islam however.

Since the perceivers are human beings, the perception must be within the limit of human beings.

Mans perception does include the power to see spiritual forms when it is properly purified. Many of the Saints have had visions of Allah (swt). This does not imply that a physical body materialized in front of them. Technically I guess I can't rule the possibility that a physical body materialized in front of them but based on the descriptions it's obvious that this is not always the case when one has such a vision.

there are many Sahih Hadiths to attest to this fact. I mean MANY.
Check your sources well. Your ignorance is not an excuse and I am least bothered of it

.

Of course they will say his throne was over the waters. Thats exactly what the Quran states. What is his "throne" though ? That's the question. Is it made of matter? That's merely an assumption on your part. Please point to the hadith that states " The throne is made out of atoms" or " the throne is a material item".

[ishraqiyun]

Your argument about the allegory of the angels near the throne might be valid, except that hawla ( حول ) used as a noun is something that surrounds the indicated object such as a fence, crowd or barrier. I.e. حول نهر النيل = (those things... boats, settlements etc.) "Along the Nile river". Or take the use of hawla in Koran:

So it would be impossible to discuss a spiritual reality using a word like "hawla" ?

[Aksel Ankersen]

So it would be impossible to discuss a spiritual reality using a word like "hawla" ?

Hmmm

Can you see a way that angels - real, tangible entities according to Koran - could be stationed around a non-physical object?

[ishraqiyun]

Because the vast majority of Muslims have perversity in their hearts as they seek hidden meanings in the clear verses of Quran. Are you aware of the verse 3:7?

I'm aware of 3:7. I was just reading an article that discussed this on al-Islam.org actually

The discussion of this starts in the section:

"The Two Kinds of Qur'anic Verses: The Explicit and the Implicit
http://www.al-islam.org/quraninislam/2.htm

[Maersk]

Maybe the moon and sun had a look at those angels when they prostrate before the throne. Where did the sun and moon go every minute of its existence to prostrate before the throne? Will Muslims be fearful if they don't prostrate before this throne and miss their favourite rising moon and sun spot? What throne is refered here? Are the sun and moon imaginary too.

[ishraqiyun]

Can you see a way that angels - real, tangible entities according to Koran - could be stationed around a non-physical object?

Please forgive me but this discussion is really starting to frustrate me due to my inability to properly express myself. It seems that the people I'm discussing this with have a very exoteric understanding of religion and anything that doesn't coincide with that view is judged to be absurd or non-nonsensical. I hate to keep using the same analogy but it remind me of the person who reads a poem that states " his heart was a great ocean" and then commented on it by saying " The organ responsible for pumping blood was filled with a massive body of salt water". Then when anyone offers another meaning they ridicule them for rejecting the (supposedly) "plain" meaning. I understand if you are not interested in studying Islamic "mysticism" , Irfan, Sufism, etc but even if you studied the basics of say Christian esoteric exegesis then maybe you would be able to understand what I am (apparently) unsuccessfully trying to explain.

Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (pbuh) a person endowed with the absolute authority to teach the esoteric meaning of the Quran revealed that : " The Book of Allah is of four natures: al-'ibarah, that is to say, the text, that is for the common people; al-Ishara, i.e. allusions that are for the select (khawass) al-lata'if, that is fine mysteries that are for the friends of God (awliya); and finally, al-haqa'iq, the truth which is for the Prophets (anbi'ya)." As a Shi'te this is my understanding of the Quran.

I believe this is perfectly inline with what is revealed regarding the understanding of the Quran:

"Verily, this is indeed a Nobel Quran , in a Book kept hidden, which none touches except the purified"."

This is view isn't limited to Shi'ites however . Even such an impeccable authority within Sunni Islam like Al-Ghazzali recognizes this reality:

"The man who claims that the Koran has no meaning except that which the exoteric exegesis has transmitted is acknowledging his own limitation. He is right in his acknowledgment, but is wrong in his judgment that puts all people on the level to which he is limited and bound. Indeed, reports and traditions ( of the Prophet and others) indicate that for men of understanding there is great latitude in the meaning of the Koran. Thus 'Ali said "The Messenger of God did not confide to me anything which he concealed from people, except that God bestows understanding of the Koran upon a man." If there were no meaning other than that which has been transmitted, what then is meant by that understanding of the Koran? The Prophet said , "surely the Koran has an outward aspect (Zahr) , an inward aspect (batin), an ending and a beginning." This tradition is also related as being from Ibn Mas'ud on his own authority, and he was one of the scholars of exegesis. What then is the meaning of the outward aspect, the inward aspect, end and beginning?"

Ali said, " If I wished I could load seventy camels with the exegesis of the Opening Surah (al-Fatiha) of the Koran". What is the meaning of this, when the exoteric interpretation [of this Surah] is extremely short? Abu al-Darada said " A man does not truly understand until he attributes different perspectives to the Koran." A certain scholar said "For every Koranic verse there are sixty thousand understandings and what remains to be understood is even more ." Others have said " The Koran contains seventy seven thousand two hundred sciences, for every word in it is a science, and then that number can be quadrupled, since every word has an outward aspect, an inward aspect, an end and a beginning"

The Prophets repetition of the phrase " In the name of God the merciful, the compassionate" twenty times was only for the purpose of pondering its esoteric meanings (batin ma'aniha). Otherwise its explanation and exegesis are so obvious that someone like him would not need to repeat it. Ibn Masu said " He who desires the knowledge of the ancients and the moderns should ponder the Koran." and that is not something that can be attained merely by its exoteric interpretation".

[Maersk]

Esoteric -- sh!t. Might as well put what's left of that Muslim brain to good use and to use the same principle to explain the trinity.

[ishraqiyun]

Esoteric -- sh!t. Might as well put what's left of that Muslim brain to good use and to use the same principle to explain the trinity.

The trinity as held to by the Catholics, Orthodox , and most Protestants would be "explained" as follows

That the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit are of one ousia . God is three hypostases or "persons" but one in essence.

It's summed up pretty succinctly int he Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds , Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
...
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[Pragmatist]

Because the vast majority of Muslims have perversity in their hearts as they seek hidden meanings in the clear verses of Quran. Are you aware of the verse 3:7?

I'm aware of 3:7. I was just reading an article that discussed this on al-Islam.org actually

The discussion of this starts in the section:

"The Two Kinds of Qur'anic Verses: The Explicit and the Implicit
http://www.al-islam.org/quraninislam/2.htm

So it lists the "literal" and the "allegorical" verses does it. I don't think so it will just suggest that there are two kinds of verse and maybe point out some of those truly idiotic verses as being "allegorical" and some innocuous and uncontroversial verses as "literal" then think they have done the job and fooled everyone. But Mohammedans are never going to let go of that "get out of jail" card by actually listing all the verses catagorised either way because that and the primitive ambiguous Arabic dialect in which the Krap Kran is written are their only hiding places when the Krap Kran is made to look stupid ( which is very often).

[charleslemartel]

Ishraqiyun,

Thanks a lot for finally responding to me. You have been avoiding my posts for so long; I thought you would never do it. Are you Islamic_Science by the way?

you have not responded to the following part of my post.

That believers perceive Allah (swt) in a form doesn't imply that He actually has a physical body. This is a visionary reality perceived by the eye of the heart. It's simply how He manifest himself to people and not a sign that he is limited to some specific physical form and location. Allah (swt) can manifest himself in an infinite variety of forms to our consciousness..

And how do you know that? Any verses from Quran to support your invention?

It definitely denotes to a throne in its physical sense. Otherwise, if you affix a different meaning to throne as dominion how are you going to reconcile the absurdity of Allah’s dominion being over the water?

Because the waters themselves also have a symbolic meaning.

Why every word in Quran has a symbolic meaning? What about your Allah's claim that Quran is clear and well explained?

Even if, just for argument's sake, symbolic meanings are conceded, how do you know what is the real meaning? Does it not shame you when you go on inventing meaning after meaning for perfectly simple words like water and throne?

Are you sure that Allah is not a symbolic word for Satan? If yes, why?

Regarding 3:7, frankly I did not go through that long article. I have been sent on a wild goose chase many a times previously by Muslims, so I proceed with care. My point is very simple. The verse 3:7 says that there are two types of verses in Quran: clear and allegorical. It says that the meanings of allegorical verses is known only to Allah and only the perverse people look for their meanings.

So my questions are,

1. How do you know that throne and water are not literal?
2. If they are allegories, do you not think you are perverse in the eyes of Allah in the light of 3:7, as you are trying to impart some hidden meanings to these words which are known only to Allah?

I know this is a great conundrum for Muslims, but let us see how you wriggle out of this.

[ishraqiyun]

Lets take a look at it with the Tafsir at-Tabari

“It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad SAW) the Book (this Qur'ân). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkâm (commandments, etc.), Al-Farâ'id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers, etc.)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials, etc.), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allâh. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord." And none receive admonition except men of understanding. “
(Tafsir At-Tabarî

Just because the throne is not to be understood as implying a physical object composed of atoms DOES NOT imply that the meaning of it is “unclear” (to those of a purified heart) or that it is known only to God. I don’t believe this verse you quoted was intended to imply that people have no spiritual perception whatsoever or that they can not be illuminated by Allah (swt) as to the meaning of many of the verses discussing the spiritual world.

It should also be noted that some Shi’ite scholars consider the “unclear” to be limited to the letters at the beginning of the chapters. They note that some Jews were trying to divine the length of time that Islam would endure based on their understanding of the secret message of the letters. At the same time Shi'ite scholars (in general) recognize that many Quranic verses have inner meanings that are clear to the pure of heart. So while some verses my be unclear and hidden even to those of a pure heart not all the inner meanings , analogies, similes, expressions of visionary realities, etc are unclear to them.

Some Shi’ite scholars also say that the proper way to translate it is not to say “ but none knows its hidden meaning save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say …” But it should rather be understood in this manner “ none know it’s hidden meaning save Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge . (with the period after knowledge rather then “Allah “ ). The say that those firmly grounded in knowledge are the Imams and Prophets. Not everyone agrees with this however. Some on both sides of the fence on this issue agree that gramatically at least it could be read either way.

I should also note that I never said that WAS the proper understanding of it. I merely said “it COULD mean” and then gave an example to illuminate the other possibliies that your statement ignored. I was showing that the view of his throne being composed of matter / physical atoms/ etc was merely one way of understanding it. If this is one of the verses known “only to Allah” then you obviously don’t know the meaning of it either so how can you use it to debunk the Quran?

[Pragmatist]

Lets take a look at it with the Tafsir at-Tabari

“It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad SAW) the Book (this Qur'ân). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkâm (commandments, etc.), Al-Farâ'id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers, etc.)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials, etc.), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allâh. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord." And none receive admonition except men of understanding. “
(Tafsir At-Tabarî

Just because the throne is not to be understood as implying a physical object composed of atoms DOES NOT imply that the meaning of it is “unclear” (to those of a purified heart) or that it is known only to God. I don’t believe this verse you quoted was intended to imply that people have no spiritual perception whatsoever or that they can not be illuminated by Allah (swt) as to the meaning of many of the verses discussing the spiritual world.

It should also be noted that some Shi’ite scholars consider the “unclear” to be limited to the letters at the beginning of the chapters. They note that some Jews were trying to divine the length of time that Islam would endure based on their understanding of the secret message of the letters. At the same time Shi'ite scholars (in general) recognize that many Quranic verses have inner meanings that are clear to the pure of heart. So while some verses my be unclear and hidden even to those of a pure heart not all the inner meanings , analogies, similes, expressions of visionary realities, etc are unclear to them.

Some Shi’ite scholars also say that the proper way to translate it is not to say “ but none knows its hidden meaning save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say …” But it should rather be understood in this manner “ none know it’s hidden meaning save Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge . (with the period after knowledge rather then “Allah “ ). The say that those firmly grounded in knowledge are the Imams and Prophets. Not everyone agrees with this however. Some on both sides of the fence on this issue agree that gramatically at least it could be read either way.

I should also note that I never said that WAS the proper understanding of it. I merely said “it COULD mean” and then gave an example to illuminate the other possibliies that your statement ignored. I was showing that the view of his throne being composed of matter / physical atoms/ etc was merely one way of understanding it. If this is one of the verses known “only to Allah” then you obviously don’t know the meaning of it either so how can you use it to debunk the Quran?

YOU have yet to tell us how YOU know what is "literal" and what is "allegorical" you can't just keep throwing these things out without telling us where you get your information from on which is which. And obviously mere men cannot presume to tell allah what he means so allah MUST have a secret list somewhere which Mohammedans know but you are not telling us about right?

[skynightblaze]

@ishraqiyun

We have already proved using quran and the hadiths that the throne is literal and not spiritual.You keep ignoring that. WE are not considering your hidden spiritual meanings because there exists proof from quran as well as the hadiths of the throne being a physical entity. Its not always necessary that everything has a spiritual meaning. You couldnt explain why throne being over the water issue properly . How does water being symbolic make sense in the context of the verse ? You quoted one example of our heart being an ocean of emotions. The context of your quote/example allows us a possible spiritual meaning but we cant derive any spiritual meaning in the context of the quranic verse because It doesnt make sense.

Further i asked you how can angels move around the throne? You said our eye of heart will see them. Dont you think you are spewing bull sh!t? Let me show how your logic is faulty.


Using your logic i can prove quran is a lie . When Allah says the believers would see the fire of the hell on the judgement day are we supposed to understand it means our eye of the heart will see the fire and there is no actual fire?? IF YES then it would judgment day is a lie and there is no hell and heaven thereby contradicting the other parts of the quran. Please tell me why shouldnt i interpret the way you did in this case?

Quran also says that angels will uphold the throne of Allah. Now tell us how can a spiritual entity be uphold by angels?

[Chiclets]

Everything in the koran is literally true until it is questioned, then it becomes allegorical/metaphorical, and the same is also true for all the religious scriptures

[charleslemartel]

Just because the throne is not to be understood as implying a physical object composed of atoms DOES NOT imply that the meaning of it is “unclear” (to those of a purified heart) or that it is known only to God. I don’t believe this verse you quoted was intended to imply that people have no spiritual perception whatsoever or that they can not be illuminated by Allah (swt) as to the meaning of many of the verses discussing the spiritual world.

Let us not talk about the purity of heart. Muhammad, for example, is considered to be a very good man by Muslims(pure of heart in other words). We, on the other hand, see him as a person with most impure heart possible. Obviously, purity of heart means different things to us.

However, my question still stands, "How do you know that throne is not to be understood as throne"? If it is not to be understood as throne, it could mean anything. And that would make its meaning obscure, and the verse allegorical. I do not think I need to explain the meaning of "allegorical" to you.

It should also be noted that some Shi’ite scholars consider the “unclear” to be limited to the letters at the beginning of the chapters. They note that some Jews were trying to divine the length of time that Islam would endure based on their understanding of the secret message of the letters. At the same time Shi'ite scholars (in general) recognize that many Quranic verses have inner meanings that are clear to the pure of heart. So while some verses my be unclear and hidden even to those of a pure heart not all the inner meanings , analogies, similes, expressions of visionary realities, etc are unclear to them.

It does not matter at all what "some" Shi'ite scholars consider unclear to be limited to. Obviously there would be a great deal of difference of opinions among the Muslim scholars. What I am stressing is much more fundamental. What you are talking about is subjective perception which varies from man to man and there is no way to know which subjective perception is correct. That is why there are so many sects in Islam and each sect considers itself to be following the purest form, and calls others heretics.

The moment you start talking about something subjective, the Quran does not remain a clear book of guidance and this flouts the claims of Allah in Quran about its clarity.

Some Shi’ite scholars also say that the proper way to translate it is not to say “ but none knows its hidden meaning save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say …” But it should rather be understood in this manner “ none know it’s hidden meaning save Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge . (with the period after knowledge rather then “Allah “ ). The say that those firmly grounded in knowledge are the Imams and Prophets. Not everyone agrees with this however. Some on both sides of the fence on this issue agree that gramatically at least it could be read either way.

And this only substantiates my contention that Quran is, in fact, an ambiguous book which cannot be a book of guidance because of its ambiguity. It also flouts the clarity claim of Allah.

I should also note that I never said that WAS the proper understanding of it. I merely said “it COULD mean” and then gave an example to illuminate the other possibliies that your statement ignored. I was showing that the view of his throne being composed of matter / physical atoms/ etc was merely one way of understanding it. If this is one of the verses known “only to Allah” then you obviously don’t know the meaning of it either so how can you use it to debunk the Quran?

You should also note that COULD MEAN actually means nothing. It is ridiculous to deny the most obvious meaning of a word and then claim that it could mean this or that. If I deny that my "keyboard" means "keyboard", then it could mean anything, even Quran .

Your contention is simply ridiculous.