To Obey the Prophet(PBUH) is obligatory to every Muslim
-
Salaam all,
Z
Z Indeed, I agree with you there, not all prophets are messengers, and as such, not all prophets needed to obey themselves as messengers, yet they still needed to obey messengers, since prophets(gneral aterm implying ALL) obey the messenger and the god as is clearly stated in verse 469.
Good that you agreed on that point. I will agree that when there are two messengers then the one who came before will need to follow the one who came after as in 381. However, in the Aya that you are pointing to says Al rasool. The Al signifies one messenger who is known to the ones who are being addressed. That messenger is Muhammad who happens to be a prophet at the same time. The conclusion is then all messengers will obey Muhammad the messenger and prophet and that the rule does not apply to muhammad the prophet because he is also Muhammad the messenger and the two roles are indivisible.
Actually, there is a separation, its alrrasoola alnnabiyya
THE MESSENGER, THE PROPHET, not, THE MESSENGER PROPHET, moreover the quran in verse 3340 explicity separates the two roles/concepts.Incorrect, the fact that it uses the two ALs does not mean separation. The Qur'an is full of examples of Al Aziz Al RAheem= the dominant, the merciful for God. You do not separate them. God is always dominant and always merciful. He does not assume one role one time and another role another time.
Here is an example for you
7157 Allatheena yattabiAAoona alrrasoola alnnabiyya alommiyya= those who follow the messenger, the prophet, the unbooked.He is all three all the time and not divided by three like a trinity and not assuming one role one day and another another day.
Warner,
To me the verse does not make sense with the traditional explanation. I think in the verse 381 nabiyyeena /prophets include all prophets including Muhammad and ?Rasulun musaddiqun/messenger confirming? is the malaika/spirit who brings the message confirming what is already given to the Prophets.
I would disagree. In the relationship between humans and angels/malaika. Angels always help humans but not the other way around. so, your understanding does not fit.
Nun,
No, the covenant included ALL PROPHETS from different times/places -- do you agree per verse below?
http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/33/33_7.htm
English (Yusuf Ali)
337 And remember We took from the prophets their covenant As (We did) from thee from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary We took from them a solemn covenantWrong for two reasons
1- Just because 381 and 337 contain the word covenant does not mean that the covenant in the two Ayas are the same.2- Even if it is the same covenant, then it still applies because Muhammad (PBUH) is the last one of them and they all have to follow him, while he does not follow anyone of them. Remember that it was the earlier prophets who were asked to believe in the later messenger and not the other way around. You are asked to believe in the one you are supposed to follow.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
-
The conclusion is then all messengers will obey Muhammad the messenger and prophet and that the rule does not apply to muhammad the prophet because he is also Muhammad the messenger and the two roles are indivisible.
Salaam Hussein
I do not understand how and why the Prophets/Messengers who have died before Muhammad help and believe in Muhammad after their deaths? How will this messenger/Muhammad ?come? to the already passed away prophets? After passing away will these Prophets still be having the book and wisdom so Muhammad can come and confirm what they have with them after they are dead? Also the verse 381 does not say anything about Prophets or messengers ?obeying? another Messenger
-
Salaam Warner,
I do not understand how and why the Prophets/Messengers who have died before Muhammad help and believe in Muhammad after their deaths? How will this messenger/Muhammad ?come? to the already passed away prophets? After passing away will these Prophets still be having the book and wisdom so Muhammad can come and confirm what they have with them after they are dead? Also the verse 381 does not say anything about Prophets or messengers ?obeying? another Messenger
Because the Aya states a general rule of God to all the prophets. It applies to them before Muhammad as in John following and helping Jesus and if there were prophets at the time of Muhammad, then it would have applied to them.
God puts it to let the message be known that the earlier prophets are subservient to the later prophet. This is the message to their followers to follow the later messengers. It says to all If your messenger is alive today, then he would have believed in Muhammad as per this oath and he would have followed him. It means that no one should use the excuse, "but I will follow this or that prophet but not Muhammad" because Muhammad is the one to be followed since he is the last.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Salaam Warner,
Because the Aya states a general rule of God to all the prophets. It applies to them before Muhammad as in John following and helping Jesus and if there were prophets at the time of Muhammad, then it would have applied to them.
God puts it to let the message be known that the earlier prophets are subservient to the later prophet. This is the message to their followers to follow the later messengers. It says to all If your messenger is alive today, then he would have believed in Muhammad as per this oath and he would have followed him. It means that no one should use the excuse, "but I will follow this or that prophet but not Muhammad" because Muhammad is the one to be followed since he is the last.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
Salaam Hussein
Do you mean to say majority of the time a messenger came to a nation there were already prophets present among them who have been given the Book and Wisdom. I do not understand since the Prophets in 381 are already given the Book and Wisdom why should be a messenger coming to confirm. Most of the time in the Quran when a Messenger came to a nation there were no Prophet present among the people with the book and the wisdom.
381
?.summa ja_'akum rasu_lum musaddiqul
?.And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possessDoes the language here imply certainly a Messenger will come confirming what is with the Prophets or ?maybe? a messenger will come confirming?
Does believe and help means subservient? Also the verse does not say follow.
Was Abraham subservient to Lot, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob?
Aaron was after Moses does it mean Moses had to follow Aaron -
Salaam Hussein
It says let him hear the word of God. What does the word of God point to? and who is the sender of the messenger?
The verse does not say ?let them hear the Quran? ?
What has sender of the Messenger got to do with this verse or with this discussion?Inaccurate understanding. It says created Kulli Shayin. Shayin is used in Arabic to point to entities that stand alone. It is not used to point to entities that do not stand alone, such as speech and other attributes. So, the Aya does not apply to God's speech.
Can you please give me reference for ?Shayin is used in Arabic to point to entities that stand alone?? Gods speech or speech of a honored Messenger ?
Speech because God said that He spoke them. However, the words are the entity that does not stand alone and that is not created. When you read the Qur'an on paper or hear it. Your are looking at created ink and created paper and you hear created voices. All of those are created means of communications. However, the words themselves are not created.
Which verse does God say He ?spoke them?? When Muhammad received inspiration and recited or delivered the Quran by way of speech was he speaking the created Quran or uncreated Quran? The people who listened to Muhammads speech were they listening to the created Quran or the uncreated Quran? Words are either written or speech (unless electronic means ). Why do you say the word themselves are not created?
Hadeeth is created because it comes from a created being. It is a product of Wahy but expressed in the words and actions of the messenger.
QuoteWhat is your criterion in distinguishing between authentic and unauthentic hadeeth?
1- consistency with the Qur'anic message.
2- frequency and variation in the reported issue.
3- the names and status of the different people in the isnad.
4- The seriousness and consequence of the order, in case that was an order.
5- Whether I can understand it correctly or not.You put this together and then you come up with a certain degree of assuredness or inassuredness about the hadeeth.
-
Salaam Warner,
Thanks for your questions.
Do you mean to say majority of the time a messenger came to a nation there were already prophets present among them who have been given the Book and Wisdom. I do not understand since the Prophets in 381 are already given the Book and Wisdom why should be a messenger coming to confirm. Most of the time in the Quran when a Messenger came to a nation there were no Prophet present among the people with the book and the wisdom.
The Aya talks about rule and oath but not about majority and minority. It suggests that if such situations occurred, then that rule will apply. As any general rule, exceptions can happen according to the situation.
381
?.summa ja_'akum rasu_lum musaddiqul
?.And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possessDoes the language here imply certainly a Messenger will come confirming what is with the Prophets or ?maybe? a messenger will come confirming?
The statement is understood as conditional, basically if he comes, then you do so and so. It is not understood as someone will come while you are present.
Does believe and help means subservient? Also the verse does not say follow.
You generally believe in the one you will need to follow.
Was Abraham subservient to Lot, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob?
Abraham and Lot were contemporaries. They were in two different places and messengers to two different peoples. The following here does not apply because the following is when the messenger comes to the same place. As for the children of Abraham, then there is no mention in the Qur'an about when and whether their father was alive when they became prophets. Ishmael also was far away when he becamse messenger. However, you do have the example of Jacob prostrating to Joseph, his son.
Aaron was after Moses does it mean Moses had to follow Aaron
Aaron became a prophet because Moses asked God specifically for him to help him. That is a special situation.
The verse does not say ?let them hear the Quran? ?
What has sender of the Messenger got to do with this verse or with this discussion?Ok, the Aya says "untill they hear the words of Allah". Give me your viable alternative understanding. In the absense of that viable alternative, my understanding stands.
Can you please give me reference for ?Shayin is used in Arabic to point to entities that stand alone?? Gods speech or speech of a honored Messenger ?
1- Shayin was never used to point to the Qur'an. It was used to point to God.
2- 199 waqad khalaqtuka min qablu walam taku shayan= And I have created you from before and you were not a Shayan
Zachariah was always in God's knowledge and thought and God's thought and knowledge are eternal. However that did not qualify Zachariah as a Shayin untill he became a stand alone entity at the moment of his creation.3- Itha Arada shayan fainnama yaqoolu lahu kun fayakoon= If he wanted a Shay, he will say to him be and it is.
So, the Shayin does not become a Shayin untill it becomes a stand alone entity. It was not a shay when it was in God's thoughts and plans, only after the "be" that it became a Shayin.When Muhammad received inspiration and recited or delivered the Quran by way of speech was he speaking the created Quran or uncreated Quran? The people who listened to Muhammads speech were they listening to the created Quran or the uncreated Quran? Words are either written or speech (unless electronic means ). Why do you say the word themselves are not created?
The words are what enters your mind and heart. This is the part that is uncreated. When Muhammad was reciting the Qur'an, his voice was created but the words that entered the hearts of the followers were uncreated. Words are communicated by speech or writing, but the words themselves are not standing alone. What enters your brain is the not the ink nor the voice nor the paper, but the words themselves.
So, the words are never standing alone. They are always in the sender. They can be in the receiver and they can be carried on created means which include voice or writing.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Peace Warner,
Can you please give me reference for ?Shayin is used in Arabic to point to entities that stand alone?? Gods speech or speech of a honored Messenger?
Of course, speech/communication is also a thing "shay'a" according to 1988-89. I am baffled that any educated and reasonably rational person in this day and age can still be arguing for this medieval Abbasid-era dogmatic innovation of the "eternal and uncreated Quran". Thus, they will claim that they answered the logical issues brought by their absurd claims but if you look back at the thread, you will see that they only provide superficial and circular answers (i.e., excuses) without any substance. Like their unsubstantiated claim that because the god is eternal and uncreated then his speech is eternal and uncreated. This is an assumption for which they bring ZERO proof. So if you are 40 years old then does this mean that your speech is 40 years old? Of course this is nonsense. The god can decide AT ANYTIME to say something. He can decide AT ANYTIME to create something by saying "be" and it becomes. What those dogmatic Sunnis have essentially been trying to propagate is the false notion that the god cannot say "be" at anytime because that "be" is eternal and uncreated just like him (the god be most exalted above what they describe). Their claims are like the claims of the Jews because it is just another devious way to claim that the god's hands are tied.
They don't even understand the meaning of "communication", which by definition requires a source, a destination and a medium. Without those three things, then it is by definition not communication.
Also, if I communicate to you that "roses are red". If this communication is eternal and uncreated then past and future do not matter anymore. I can't be telling you about roses that I saw in the past because there is no "past" beyond "eternal" and "uncreated". Therefore, this requires roses and the red color to be "eternal" and "uncreated" too. So when the god said that he "created" the earth, if this sentence is eternal and uncreated then the earth is also eternal and uncreated since there is no past experience compared to "eternal" and "uncreated". Of course this is nonsense.
One can go on and write a whole book about all the logical absurdities created by their nonsense but there is no way to change the minds of dogmatic people who are pushing a medieval anti-rational idea.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Wrong for two reasons
1- Just because 381 and 337 contain the word covenant does not mean that the covenant in the two Ayas are the same.2- Even if it is the same covenant, then it still applies because Muhammad (PBUH) is the last one of them and they all have to follow him, while he does not follow anyone of them. Remember that it was the earlier prophets who were asked to believe in the later messenger and not the other way around. You are asked to believe in the one you are supposed to follow.
Illogical ? ALL Prophets from different times/places made a covenant including?
http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/33/33_40.htm
The messenger in 381 is unnamed -- how did you come to your conclusion?
Simple logic tells us the messenger in 381 cannot be a Prophet; they all made a covenant.
381
?.summa ja_'akum rasu_lum musaddiqul
?.And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possessThe statement is understood as conditional, basically if he comes, then you do so and so. It is not understood as someone will come while you are present.
IF TRUE THEN 381 is void according to you contradicting your 2. above with earlier Prophets unless backward time-travel happened.
Covenant was made by ALL Prophets in all times/places and 382 tells us what would happen if they broke their covenant?
http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/3/3_82.htm
337 also states ALL Prophets made a covenant and 338 gives the reason?
http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/33/33_7.htm
http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/33/33_8.htmBecause the Aya states a general rule of God to all the prophets. It applies to them before Muhammad as in John following and helping Jesus and if there were prophets at the time of Muhammad, then it would have applied to them.
God puts it to let the message be known that the earlier prophets are subservient to the later prophet. This is the message to their followers to follow the later messengers. It says to all If your messenger is alive today, then he would have believed in Muhammad as per this oath and he would have followed him. It means that no one should use the excuse, "but I will follow this or that prophet but not Muhammad" because Muhammad is the one to be followed since he is the last.
Prophets are to follow and be subservient (i.e. servants) to a future Prophet?
The analogy of prior following the later thus making the later greater and Prophets thousand years apart being servants following a future Prophet sounds like Christian Trinity ? it makes no sense and contradicts Qur?an.
This is setting partners with God with dire consequences ? think before you write.
Peace
-
Good that you agreed on that point. I will agree that when there are two messengers then the one who came before will need to follow the one who came after as in 381. However, in the Aya that you are pointing to says Al rasool. The Al signifies one messenger who is known to the ones who are being addressed. That messenger is Muhammad who happens to be a prophet at the same time. The conclusion is then all messengers will obey Muhammad the messenger and prophet and that the rule does not apply to muhammad the prophet because he is also Muhammad the messenger and the two roles are indivisible.
Z You're not making any sense here and you are equivocating terms once again..381 speaks of prophets supporting and belieiving in a messenger that comes after, not messengers obeying the messenger that comes after.
Furthermore, you yourself claim that prophets are not messengers, yet here you now claim the two roles as being indivisble(one in the same).
Please take your time when responding..
Incorrect, the fact that it uses the two ALs does not mean separation. The Qur'an is full of examples of Al Aziz Al RAheem= the dominant, the merciful for God. You do not separate them. God is always dominant and always merciful. He does not assume one role one time and another role another time.
Here is an example for you
7157 Allatheena yattabiAAoona alrrasoola alnnabiyya alommiyya= those who follow the messenger, the prophet, the unbooked.He is all three all the time and not divided by three like a trinity and not assuming one role one day and another another day.
Z Oh dear, hussein, do you understand the concept of "roles"?
If by chance you do, then let me help you understand 469, basically it states, one of the functional responsibilites in "playing" the prophet role is to obey the role of the messenger.
Now, ask yourself
What is the role of the messenger and how can the prophet obey this messenger role?
-
Salaam Hussein
The words are what enters your mind and heart. This is the part that is uncreated. When Muhammad was reciting the Qur'an, his voice was created but the words that entered the hearts of the followers were uncreated. Words are communicated by speech or writing, but the words themselves are not standing alone. What enters your brain is the not the ink nor the voice nor the paper, but the words themselves.
The Quran says in 96 ?hear the word of Allah? and it does not distinguish between what enters the hearts and the mind and which does not. For example some of the Mushrikeen mentioned in 96 who listen to the words of Allah recited to them think this is ?word of a madman?, ?Tales of the ancients? ? or ?fabricated lies? would the word of God still have entered their hearts and minds ? In that case what they ?heard? will it be still word of God?
So, the words are never standing alone. They are always in the sender. They can be in the receiver and they can be carried on created means which include voice or writing.
Is not Pharaoh Sender of his words rejecting God or claiming him to be god? Are the disbelievers not the senders of their words of rejection? The thought of rejection comes from the heart and mind of Pharaoh and would that not make him the original sender of those words?
-
Salaam all,
Of course, speech/communication is also a thing "shay'a" according to 1988-89.
Not true. In Aya 1989, the Shayin is "son of God" which is supposed to be a stand alone entity, and not the speech of the people. Proof The Aya starts with Jitum= you brought and not Qultum= you said. Jitum points to the entity in question and not the speech itself. The rest of your post is a rant. I will leave it at that.
Illogical ? ALL Prophets from different times/places made a covenant including?
http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/33/33_40.htm
The messenger in 381 is unnamed -- how did you come to your conclusion?
Simple logic tells us the messenger in 381 cannot be a Prophet; they all made a covenant.
There are many covenants in the Qur'an and not one.
381 talks about any later messenger and Muhammad was the latest. It applies to anyone who came before him under this criteria, example Jesus and John, but it also applies to Muhammad because he was the last.
There is not a single Messenger/Rasool in the Qur'an who was not a prophet/Nabi at the same time. So, your last point, you are making things up and conjecturing beyond what the Qur'an provides you. I thought that you were a Qur'an aloner.
The statement is understood as conditional, basically if he comes, then you do so and so. It is not understood as someone will come while you are present.
IF TRUE THEN 381 is void according to you contradicting your 2. above with earlier Prophets unless backward time-travel happened.
Covenant was made by ALL Prophets in all times/places and 382 tells us what would happen if they broke their covenant
I suggest that you study how conditional sentences in Arabic come. You can read the book of Sibaweh. This is conditional in Arabic even if it does not translate well in the English.
Prophets are to follow and be subservient (i.e. servants) to a future Prophet?
The analogy of prior following the later thus making the later greater and Prophets thousand years apart being servants following a future Prophet sounds like Christian Trinity ? it makes no sense and contradicts Qur?an.
This is setting partners with God with dire consequences ? think before you write.
Emotional speak with no support. That rule is important to maintain the unity of the message of God to the people. If the earlier prophets were not bound to follow the later messenger, then there would be many "legitimate" messages, all claiming to be from God but vastly different from each other or fighting with each other. God would not want his people to fight with each other.
In addition. A medical stundent is asked to read the latest eddition of the medical textbook that was originally written a hundred years ago. The original author will not contest because the more current knowledge takes precedence over the older and the later scholar built more information on the original ground and therefore has more authority in the field and at our time.
Z You're not making any sense here and you are equivocating terms once again..381 speaks of prophets supporting and belieiving in a messenger that comes after, not messengers obeying the messenger that comes after.
Furthermore, you yourself claim that prophets are not messengers, yet here you now claim the two roles as being indivisble(one in the same).
Please take your time when responding..
Thanks for giving me the time. Please reread my responses to you because you may have missed something. There is no messenger mentioned in the Qur'an who was not a prophet. So, any messenger in 381 who is to be followed was also a prophet. If you want to make a claim that a person can be a messenger but not a prophet then you are against every single messenger also prophet of the Qur'an. You are making an extra Qur'anic claim that needs to be proven. If you cannot prove it, then you will then need to take your time and relax.
Now, even though every messenger that is mentioned in the Qur'an is also a prophet, not all prophets of the Qur'an are messengers. What does that mean? If the Qur'an mentions a messenger, then he is expected to be a prophet, whereas if the Qur'an mentions a prophet, then this is as far as you go unless there is another passage in the Qur'an that mentions that person as a messenger.
Z Oh dear, hussein, do you understand the concept of "roles"?
If by chance you do, then let me help you understand 469, basically it states, one of the functional responsibilites in "playing" the prophet role is to obey the role of the messenger.
If you assume two roles at the same time, then you will have to assume the two roles all the time and not divide it as a person with a split personality. If you are a husband and a father, you are always that. Your judgement has to take those two roles all the time. That is the same for the one who is prophet and messenger at the same time. He does not separate them.
The Quran says in 96 ?hear the word of Allah? and it does not distinguish between what enters the hearts and the mind and which does not. For example some of the Mushrikeen mentioned in 96 who listen to the words of Allah recited to them think this is ?word of a madman?, ?Tales of the ancients? ? or ?fabricated lies? would the word of God still have entered their hearts and minds ? In that case what they ?heard? will it be still word of God?
Yes. If you recite a piece of poetry that was originally recited by Shakespeare. the voice is yours but the words are Shakespeares. If you claim the words as yours then you become a plagiarizer.
Is not Pharaoh Sender of his words rejecting God or claiming him to be god? Are the disbelievers not the senders of their words of rejection? The thought of rejection comes from the heart and mind of Pharaoh and would that not make him the original sender of those words?
Correct and the words of Pharoh follow the nature of pharoh. Pharoh was created. the words of God follow the nature of God and God is uncreated.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
-
The next step will be
Since the prophet is right now is nowhere to be found,
then we should ultimately obey the Ulema (Read self-claimed priest or "Rahib" since "Ulema" is the "Caliph" (ReadReplacement) of The Prophet.In another terms This Ulema is the "false and self-proclaimed prophet".
Salam
-
And how to do that? Let me dig out my Bukhari Whispers CD.
-
Salaam all,
The next step will be
Since the prophet is right now is nowhere to be found,
then we should ultimately obey the Ulema (Read self-claimed priest or "Rahib" since "Ulema" is the "Caliph" (ReadReplacement) of The Prophet.In another terms This Ulema is the "false and self-proclaimed prophet".
1- There are many ways to study the sayings attributed to the messenger without having to go to scholars.
2- Even if you go to scholars for what you cannot know. It is better than reading a false translation from some of the self proclaimed imams or "prophets" of this site. At least the scholars of Sunnism and Shiism and Ibadhism, agree on much more than you guys agree on.
3- The secret is to get out of the superficiality that you dug yourselves into.
OPF, yes one can study the Bukhari CD. It is however not enough and there are many other sources of knowledge that one needs. The problem that challenges some Sunnis is that they think that Bukhari is all they need and that is wrong. However, to study Bukhari for the enrichment of knowledge is better than the study of Bukhari for the "baseless hadeeth" that is also known as mockery.
There is no messenger mentioned in the Qur'an who was not a prophet.
ZA false premise. Show me where in the quran Jonah the messenger is explicity labelled a prophet
See 681-90. Also 4163
Take care all.
Hussein
-
It is better than reading a false translation from some of the self proclaimed imams or "prophets" of this site. At least the scholars of Sunnism and Shiism and Ibadhism, agree on much more than you guys agree on.
I would love to see who the 'self-proclamed imams or prophets' are. I reckon you must have undeniable evidence for this accusation. This is really showing your true character.
There's many people who also agree worshipping the devil is okay, so let's do that too.
There's many people who agree murdering is okay, so let's do that too.
There's many people who agree God doesn't exist, so he doesn't right?
However, to study Bukhari for the enrichment of knowledge is better than the study of Bukhari for the "baseless hadeeth" that is also known as mockery.
So Quran is also mocking huh?
316 And from the people, there are those who accept baseless narrations (hadeeth) to mislead from the path of God without knowledge, and they take it as entertainment. These will have a humiliating retribution.
-
Salaam Dargento,
The self proclaimed imams of this site may know themselves or may not. You can detect them from their writings. They tend to be followed by those of you who are here and who have no knowledge of Arabic. I do not like to name names. My manners prohibit me and so does my Taqwa.
As for the baseless hadeeth. It applies to any baseless hadeeth including yours and it does not apply to any hadeeth that is true and authentic including those attributed to the prophet.
Take care.
Hussein
-
Salaam Dargento,
The self proclaimed imams of this site may know themselves or may not. You can detect them from their writings. They tend to be followed by those of you who are here and who have no knowledge of Arabic. I do not like to name names. My manners prohibit me and so does my Taqwa.
As for the baseless hadeeth. It applies to any baseless hadeeth including yours and it does not apply to any hadeeth that is true and authentic including those attributed to the prophet.
Take care.
Hussein
4912 - O you who believe! avoid most of suspicion, for surely suspicion in some cases is a sin, and do not spy nor let some of you backbite others. Does one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? But you abhor it; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), Merciful.
-
I don't see it, I don't see Jonah being labelled explicty a prophet in those verses.
Maybe you can point it out for me?