Literal?

[Viking]

The Prophet SAWS mentionned in a well known Hadith that the Jews would be split into 71 and the (one will be saved and 70 would go to hell), the Christians will split into 72 sects etc... and that Muslims would break up into 73 sects where all save one group/sect would go to hell.

 

There is another well-known tradition that says that if you were to divide hellfire into 70 000 parts, all the fires in the world (combined) would only constitute one part. Such is the fury of hellfire! There is also another tradition where the Prophet SAWS says that dream-vision is the seventieth part of prophecy.

 

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

Hadith - Sahih Bukhari 4:464, Narrated 'Imran bin Husain

 

The Prophet SAWS said, "Verily! 70,000 or 700,000 of my followers will enter Paradise altogether; so that the first and the last amongst them will enter at the same time, and their faces will be glittering like the bright full moon."

 

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

 

Volume 7, Book 71, Number 648:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

 

The Prophet once came out to us and said, "Some nations were displayed before me. A prophet would pass in front of me with one man, and another with two men, and another with a group of people. and another with nobody with him. Then I saw a great crowd covering the horizon and I wished that they were my followers, but it was said to me, 'This is Moses and his followers.' Then it was said to me, 'Look'' I looked and saw a big gathering with a large number of people covering the horizon. It was said, "Look this way and that way.' So I saw a big crowd covering the horizon. Then it was said to me, "These are your followers, and among them there are 70,000 who will enter Paradise without (being asked about their) accounts. " Then the people dispersed and the Prophet did not tell who those 70,000 were. So the companions of the Prophet started talking about that and some of them said, "As regards us, we were born in the era of heathenism, but then we believed in Allah and His Apostle . We think however, that these (70,000) are our offspring." That talk reached the Prophet who said, "These (70,000) are the people who do not draw an evil omen from (birds) and do not get treated by branding themselves and do not treat with Ruqya, but put their trust (only) in their Lord." then 'Ukasha bin Muhsin got up and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Am I one of those (70,000)?" The Prophet said, "Yes." Then another person got up and said, "Am I one of them?" The Prophet said, " 'Ukasha has anticipated you."

 

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

 

 

Now, regarding i.e. the first tradition, there are many sects in Islam that claim to belong to the "saved" sect and they have their own ways of proving why they think they are the chosen ones.

 

Arabs are well-known for using the number 70 to express the idea of a large number. So, could the Prophet SAWS be saying that (in the first tradition) a very large number of Muslims would go to hell (and not the literal meaning some have given the tradition - sect A, or sect B is the "saved" sect)?

 

In my opinion, these traditions seem to make more sense if they are viewed as allegorical and not taken literally - the numbers that is - for we are unable to comprehend or imagine the image that the Prophet SAWS is trying to paint and therefore he uses the number 70 with varying levels.

 

 

Should we take it literally? Why do some people take things like these literally? Are we compelled by the Deen to take them literally?

[xiinfaniin]

It is more complicated than this, saaxiib. It goes to the heart of admissibility of مجاز in the divine words of Allah. It is how the question of whether teh divine word is plainly and literally real or whether it could contain occasional metaphorical and allegorical passages was born.

 

But before we go even further and expound why it is necessary to accept the literal meanings of both the tradition and the Qur’an I would plead with you to tell us what is it that bothers you to accept as it is? Or is it just a mere intellectual exercise of yours that brought this topic to life?

[Viking]

xiinfaniin,

It is not a just a mere exercise sxb but a chapter I was reading in a book prompted me to put all these into context. Of course I accept it as it is but I might understand it as a symbolic representation for we cannot imagine things that our brains are unable to comprehend. But this doesn't mean that I will attach to it an 'illogical' interpretation (far from the truth) brought about by speculation. I would personally interpret 70 000 followers as meaning many, a huge number, and not literally seventy-thousand as we know it numerically.

 

When it comes to interpretations, scholars have been divided depending on the time they live in. The current epoch, in terms of intepretation (from the past 100 years or so), has been dominated by literalists. This has naturally been a reaction to the era that preceeded it where the other side of the scale was generally the norm.

 

So the dilemma remains for us commoners, does 73 sects mean, seventy-three, numerically, or is it merely allegorical? What if it comes a time in the near future when we can count 82 sects within Islam, will the Prophet's prediction in this particular tradition still stand? These are things that come to mind when confronted by such traditions, how are we to interpret it? Some are convinced it is numerical and that is why we have exclusive sects which believe to be the ONE sect that is to be saved on the Day of Reckonning.

 

The nature of things we are yet to percieve are beyond our imagination and comprehension and naturally paradise is described in an allegorical fashion using words that we are familiar with i.e. green gardens, milk, honey, beautiful maidens etc. These description we can fathom.

 

You imagine (as an example, a radical one as such) how you could describe the internet to a geeljire who is yet to see an automobile. Would you use words like server, hardware, software and bandwidth? Or would you try and use terminology familiar to him, even though you will know it would be very far from the Real McCoy. The geeljire will have two options, to either take your description literally or allegorically; the latter would leave it all to the imagination for it would be a massive task to try and truely comprehend (in a literal manner) something one is yet to experience.

[xiinfaniin]

Viking , I understand why now.

 

But I cannot help but wonder (this is not about you as you’re not first to release his curiosity on this) why a Muslim mobilize his/her efforts to dice and slice divine words? Of course you know, good Viking, what gave these questions to surface was the genuine attempt of rationalist scholars to address the issue of divine attributes and to effect perfect Tanziih. But as you may be aware of the process had became quite slippery and many were compelled (by the methods of logic) to deny some of Allah’s divine qualities. So my question has been and still is if the companion of the prophet were not raising these questions and took the literal meaning of the script why should we? Are we trying to arrive at better and superior understanding than theirs?

 

I am not a daring man when surrounded with the bulwark of the revealed word. I have found my safety in being compliant with the original understanding of the salaf. They were pioneers of this and lived better era than we do. By now, you know me enough and you often saw me insisting that the beauty of faith is to believe. Though the meaning of this particular hadith is readily available and easily attainable, your questions are on a bigger topic or so I think.

 

As I said before the applicability of Majaas to the Qur’an is a subject that had been attended by scholars of great authority. As of ten the case is, I am with the radical view of Shiekhul Islam on this. And thusly I hold it to be not permissible.

 

Thanks for the topic, saaxiib, it is great.

[Viking]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

So my question has been and still is if the companion of the prophet were not raising these questions and took the literal meaning of the script why should we? Are we trying to arrive at better and superior understanding than theirs?

xiinfaniin,

Sxb, a lot of things hapenned after the death of the Noble Prophet SAWS. His companions were divided and even fought amongst themselves. Since the time of the Messenger, Muslims have grazed both extremes. Currently, literalism reigns but is naturally a reaction to the preceeding views which caused the paradigm shift. This discussion might seem odd to some today but Literalism was alien to the people who lived in the time of Ibn Taymiyah and even some 500 years later when they were re-introduced.

 

I had a feeling this issue could not be discussed without challenging/adressing the aspect of Literalism in Islam as a whole, a discussion which we are (at least I am) ill equipped to undertake. I shall leave it at that sxb.

[Bakar]

there are 70,000 who will enter Paradise without (being asked about their) accounts .

 

 

Vicking, according to my limited understanding, 70,000 will enter paradise without being asked or reckoned in terms of their actions (good or bad) while the rest enter either Jana or hellfire after they are being assessed. If the true interpretaion is rather opposite of what i have just stipulated, then one will not be at ease when one contemplate the magnitude and the small fractin that is allowed to enter paradise. (Note I am aware the fact that we enter Jana because of the Rahma of Allah and not by our own merit)

[Xoogsade]

Viking, Now you basically buried a good topic. I learned few things already from reading it. I understood from Xiinfaniin's post that some muslims went off-track in their drive to effect perfect Tanziih.

 

Both Bakar and Xiinfaniin have it right in my understanding. There are no hidden meanings here. The 70,000 are favoured with such passage by God and the 73 sects are as they are mentioned by the prophet.

[Yonis]

Viking, there are things that can be taken as a literal and some other things that can’t be taken as literally. There is a similar incident about the question you are asking. As we know when the prophet (saw) was talking about “Al Bait-ul-Ma'mur†he said, “70,000 angels perform prayers daily and when they leave they never return to it†in this hadith, we can see our prophet use 70, 000 again, what do you think about this; can’t we take it this literally? I believe the question you asked is same like this one and need to be taken as it is.

 

Walahu Aclam

[Viking]

Bakar,

The main aim why I brought up this issue is because Arabs are known to use the number 70 to refer to a large number. 70 000 is such a small number in the literal sense in this day but was a huge number for the Muslims of 7th century Arabia. Was the Prophet SAWS merely using allegory to explain this tradition? My view is that it is not "opposite" to the view you hold but that you were brought up to take these kind of traditions literally because of the era you live in.

 

Xoogsade,

I didn't mean to kill it off but I realise that it would mean to challenge a lot in order to ratify this kind of thinking. People did go off track and Literalism has been the natural reaction. When a society takes things to the extreme, a paradigm shift naturally results in another extreme. Half a milleneum ago, Christian clergies decided everything in the life of Europeans. These clergymen were so extreme and misguided in their ways that they were in the way of any scientific endeavors. When they were got ridden off, the scale shifted all the way to the other side and now people accept everything "scientific" and shun religion. Another example is Iran, during the time of Shah Pahlavi, the USA and GB tried to radically and swiftly secularise and westernise the Iranian society. The reaction was the Islamic Revolution where people went towards the other side of the scale and are today seen to be a very strict Islamic society which shuns westernisation and secularisation. I think you get what I'm trying to get at here.

 

We all believe what we were taught by our teachers and Islamic leaders. If you were taught to take these traditions in their literal sense then you might find another interpretation to be unaceptable/unthinkable depending on the dominant thought in your geographical area. I'm not taking about a hidden meaning but suggesting that the numbers used are not to be taken literally.

 

Rashiid,

As I said a few times, we can see the number 70 used a lot in Islamic traditions because Arabs use it to express the idea of a large number. If we take them all literally then we run the risk of missing the point the Prophet SAWS is intending to make. Allah SWT knows best.

[Salafi_Online]

I'm not taking about a hidden meaning but suggesting that the numbers used are not to be taken literally.

1. The people who the Nabi(salalahu alayhi wa salam) was addressing understood it literally when they replied" who are the saved sect"

 

2. The Nabi understood it literally when he said" the save sect are those who are upon what I and my companions are on today" clearily distinguishin between the saved sect from the ruined sects.

 

3. Those who followed the companions understood it literally when they said," if Ahlul Xahith is not the saved sect, then i dont know who they are"(refer to imam Ahmed)

 

viking this is not an issue of tawheed or aqeeda but manhaj. What is your manhaj takin the deen into consideration?

[Viking]

Salafi,

Why do you keep asking me about my minhaj? Aren't we of the same minhaj? Or maybe I misunderstood the words of Allah SWT when he said...

 

"And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have prescribed a Divine law and a traced out way (minhaaj)"... [al-Ma'idah 5:48]

 

My minhaj is the Qur'an and the Sunnah, do you have anything besides that?

 

Every sect believes they are the saved sect, otherwise they would 'switch camp' don't you think? This issue is not about that but about literalism sxb.

[Salafi_Online]

Saxib i think u misunderstand the word. words have their linguistic and religious connontations. Manhaj; Its the methodology we utilize to construe the revealed scriptures. with that in mind, what is ur methodology?

 

There are three essential ingridients in islam that serve a unique purpose in constructing it.

 

1.Tawheed(the oneness of Allah

 

this element allows to distinguish and single out Allah's Oneness in terms of worship,attributes and lordship.

 

2.Qawaacid

 

this element allows us to understand and define our creedo, the essence of our belief.

 

3. Manhaj

 

this element allows to construe the text in the proper way so we understand the ayats of Alah and hadith they way they are meant to be understood,thus preventing us from use our intellect to derive ruling and meanings from our whims.

 

this is a short glimpse,perhaps Brother NUR can start a topic on ManhaajulSaxixa and its necessity.

[Xoogsade]

Bro Viking, Thanks for your clarification. Just to let you know, I have no ulterior motives but want to find out why I seemingly have a different understanding than you do on this issue. I am interested in exploring what someone who is not a literalist would derive as a meaning from these sayings of the prophet if you know. Should I assume that the objective was to convey that too many sects will appear and too many people will enter heaven without being tested/questioned? You get to wonder what is the point of quantifying? Salafi-Dacwa presented some sort of enigma when he quoted the companions's question in want of clarification of the saved sect. From their understanding, the numbers meant something specific and they wanted to know which sect was the saved among the 73 sects.

 

Another question I have for you about the sects, just because each one claims to be a saved sect, should I give them all the benefit of the doubt and treat them all equal in the eyes of islam? to me, their claim means nothing unless they support their views with evidence from islam without deviating the meaning and making it inline with a destorted view of theirs they hold dear.

 

In reply to your suggestion that my interpretations have to do with or are influenced by who my teachers are, I must say I have no loyalty to anyone including people I respect and whom I would take their opinions as safe opinions. I don't treat someone, regardless of their knowledge of islam and their status as respected scholar, as infallible for my own safety in belief. I will abandon their opinion today if I come across another one more grounded with evidence and stronger than the respected scholars used previously. I simply use everyone as a means to my objective but not as a role model. The prophet is the Only role model I must emulate while others have my respect as fellow muslims and educated scholars and brothers in islam.

 

 

Finally, thanks again for the examples you gave.

[Cara.]

I think Viking raises an interesting point. I didn't know that Arabs use 70 to mean "many". (in the same one Somalis use 100? Who has never heard their mother say "Boqol jeer baan ku iri..."?)

 

If 70 is code for "many", then maybe the Prophet was using it in that sense. It seems odd that people are questioning Viking's motives for raising a pretty harmless question.

[Cara.]

Originally posted by Salafi da'wa:

I'm not taking about a hidden meaning but suggesting that the numbers used are not to be taken literally.

1. The people who the Nabi(salalahu alayhi wa salam) was addressing understood it literally when they replied" who are the saved sect"

Not necessarily. If they understood the Prophet's words to mean that there will be MANY sects but only one would be saved, then it follows that they would ask "Which one?". No literal understanding necessary.

 

2. The Nabi understood it literally when he said" the save sect are those who are upon what I and my companions are on today" clearily distinguishin between the saved sect from the ruined sects.

Once again, you are forcing a literal meaning here which is not necessary. Distinguishing between the misguided many and the right few does not require knowing an exact number of the misguided.

 

3. Those who followed the companions understood it literally when they said," if Ahlul Xahith is not the saved sect, then i dont know who they are"(refer to imam Ahmed)

Wow, you are really determined, aren't you? Boqol jeer baad ku cel-celisay wax aadan ka fakarin!