just another makan?

پوچھتے کیا ہو عرش پر یوں گئے مصطفٰے کہ یوں
کیف کے پر جہاں جلیں کوئی بتائے کیا کہ یوں

قصر دنٰی کے راز میں عقلیں تو گم ہیں جیسی ہیں
روح قدس سے پوچھیے تم نے بھی کچھ سنا کہ یوں

خرد سے کہہ دو کہ سر جھکا لے گماں سے گزرے گزرنے والے
پڑے ہیں یاں خود جہت کو لالے کسے بتائے کدھر گئے تھے

 

I guess the answer was already in the question. That they are only ascriptions and not restrictions. And we do so because we are we, and not He ﷻ, nor are we His chosen ones عليهم السلام.

جزاك الله خيرًا

 

in the qur'an: 'they ask you about the soul. tell them it is by the Command of my Lord Almighty. and you are not given knowledge, except little'.

the fallacy, and where humans falter is when they start with the premises:

- everything can be understood
- everything can be described and explained
- *i* can understand everything if explained to me​

and followed by the objections

- why not? why is it incomprehensible? [implying everything else is understood]
- why can it not be explained? [implying the assumption: there has to be a way]
​

when one is tied up with this, the devil brings up his misleading questions:

- see? there is no explanation. [implying all of this is made up and is fiction]
- if there was an explanation, someone should have understood by now?​

====
we must acknowledge that human mind operates on examples and extrapolation of what we know (by experience or extrapolation of such experience - 'tasawwur'). the human mind has limitations and not everything can be understood.

if you said 'laptop' and 'smart phone' or the 'internet' to the wisest man or most knowledgeable scientist 300 years ago - they would not understand it spontaneously. you would then have to explain by examples and by illustrations on what a 'computer' could do. and that it was a machine etc. if you go back to the time of charles babbage - the concept of a 'computer' would be far different from what an 8 year child (from a developed country) knows spontaneously in our time.

---
so any explanations about the soul by us non-prophets will only be conjectures and extrapolations.
this is one reason i "like" quantum mechanics. and in that parlance - a soul can be in a place or not in a place at the same time.

: )

wa's salam.



you must read this article and try to read it by replacing "quantum physics" with "certain concepts in islamic aqidah".

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2328087-can-particles-really-be-in-two-places-at-the-same-time/

----

 

continuing from my previous post, we must be very careful when we use the words such as "time and space", "space-time continuum" etc.
It gives the impression that there is a direct correspondence between these terms as used in Kalam and as used in Physics. Which I don't think is true.

Kaalam scholars were talking about a more abstract, more intuitive definition of these terms, one which can be grasped by the mind alone - without having to go around with instruments measuring red-shifts of starlight or effects of black-holes on its trajectory or complex mathematical formulae - based on assumptions, filled with assumptions.

As the current understanding of "space" stands, I think, to exist, such "space" itself needs makaan.

As for modern theories of time, they are enough to bamboozle most non experts. And unless we understand them thoroughly we can't validate them as correct or even potentially correct.


----
p.s. This is one of the many places where daniel haqiqatjou disappointed me. Given his education, I had assumed he'd spend time simplifying these complex theories and pointing out the flaws or weaknesses in them. That expectation was what drew me to his content initially.

 

good question. I asked something related a few posts back - see here.

and

of these, I can now answer the first question (bullet#2) with an emphatic no. "Space", as currently understood by physicists and astronomers, is nothing like the "makaan" that the kalaam scholars spoke about.

In fact physical "space" is a weird thing which has confusing explanations - depending on whom you ask.

A compilation of resources on the subject has been languishing in my bookmarks-app since more than two years - I had intended to start a separate thread on "Space vs Makaan", but never got around to doing it:

1. Space Isn’t What You Think It Is
2. As The Universe Expands, Does Space Actually Stretch? (Or is 'new space' created in between the gaps of the 'old' space?)
3. Understanding space expansion | Britannica
4. Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia
5. How do we define distance in an expanding universe?
6. What is the universe expanding into?
7. Is the Universe really expanding?
8. On The Relativity of Redshifts: Does Space Really "Expand"?
9. The 3 Types Of Redshifts | Basics Of Astrophysics Series
10. UV surface brightness of galaxies from the local universe to z ~ 5 | International Journal of Modern Physics

----------

I checked a few Youtube videos from popular channels, viz. Sabine Hossenfelder and Veritaseum, on the concept of "expanding universe" which does not get any bigger nonetheless, and I found the explanations are sometimes contradictory and sometimes downright confusing.

Check the above links - the answers are interesting.

 

Why then do we ascribe places and movement to souls?

 

this is a different question.

one does not have to be present in the sky to see the sky. this is one of the meanings of the hadith: "you will see your Lord Almighty like you would see [the full moon] without any difficulty". [hadith of bukhari does not mention moon explicitly, but: "as you would see this" - indicating towards the moon].

this doesn't mean you have to be on the moon to see the moon. conversely, Allah ta'ala existence is not dependent in a "place" to be seen.
this comparison is in the ability of the one who sees - not a similitude for that which/who is seen.

also, this doesn't mean that Allah ta'ala will be at a distance or that one's sight can encompass Him or any of those attributes of creation; rather, it means that the 'seeing' will be physical - just as you would see the moon.

---
as for "crossing over" into wara-al-wara'a or "beyond the farthest limit" - it does not have to be with the body or its limits.
so 'Divine Vision' - and 'going further' are two different concepts.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

this answer was in the context of ajsaam - bodies.
however, there are 'things' which are created/creation but are free from occupying space. thoughts. emotions. faith. souls.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

I’m still confused on this topic.

From what I gathered in this thread is that there are two view points:

1. The blessed body of Sayidunna Rasul ﷺ remained in the makan, while his blessed Ruh e Mubarak went beyond the makan and saw Allah SubHan Wata’la as stated in the video by Mufti Monawwar Ateeq and Huzoor Taj Al-Shariah.

2. Creation is limited by time and space. All of creation is within the makan. Therefore, it can be said that Sayidunna Rasul ﷺ was brought to an exalted place, the edges or furthest point of the makan, where no other creation ever went and saw Allah SubHan Wata’la. However, we do not ask how this can occur, just that it is possible.

Please correct me if me if I’m wrong.


Of the two points, which is the stronger opinion? Can we accept either one?

JazakAllah Khair

 

baalaa e arsh does not mean laa makaan, can be translated to "on top of the throne"

shayk abdul haq's ibarat also clearly says "taa hadd e lamakaan", which can also be translated to "to the limit of the space", then there is only Allah Subhanu wa Ta'ala (bila kaif wa aina).

no vocabulary can accurately or even nearly accurately describe this mu'jizah.

 

You should ask mufti sahab.

Note: in his speech mufti sahab is contradicting the fundamental aqidah which he himself stated at 13:46. He said;

then later he says;

This is paradoxical, does he believe that RasulAllah alaihi afDalus salatu wasalam is wajib al wujud or anything that has a nisbah with RasulAllah is wajib al wujud?

 

Mufti Sahib also said:

I'm curious which scholars of aqida expressed this same view...