To Obey the Prophet(PBUH) is obligatory to every Muslim
-
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?
-
Peace,
689 Those to whom We have given the Scripture, and the law, and the prophethood, if they reject it, then We will entrust it to a people who will not reject it.
Z The "whom" is in reference to a "people" (more than likely jews) who were given the Scripture, the law, and the prophethood.
It has nothing to do with Jonah being labelled a prophet.
The fact is, if you were to conclude that Jonah is a prophet by that verse, you would also have to include the following people..
687 And from their fathers and their progeny and their brothers We have also chosen; and We guided them to a straight path.
Peace
-
There is nothing to stop the 687 from talking about other prophets related to them but not mentioned by name. There are many of them in the bible and the Qur'an does not deny it. Regular jews are not given prophethood as mentioned in 689. Also, 687 starts with
687 And from their fathers and their progeny and their brothers We have also chosen; and We guided them to a straight path.
The "from" puts a limit to the issue and God chooses prophets.
Hussein
-
There is nothing to stop the 687 from talking about other prophets related to them but not mentioned by name. There are many of them in the bible and the Qur'an does not deny it. Regular jews are not given prophethood as mentioned in 689. Also, 687 starts with
687 And from their fathers and their progeny and their brothers We have also chosen; and We guided them to a straight path.
The "from" puts a limit to the issue and God chooses prophets.
Z Yes, and there is nothing to stop verse 687 from talking about other people in general, IN FACT, it IS talking about other people in general, not neccessarily prophets(a subset of the others).
Furthermore, the people referred to in verse 689 are more than likely the Jewish people in general, thus they are given as a people the gift of having prophets(prophethood), but of course if they reject their prophets, than the prophethood can be given to another people, which of course...
Now my friend, I am still waiting for the quranic proof that Jonah the messenger was labelled a prophet.
And if by some miraculous luck you do actually find some verse in the quran, thereafter I would like for you to locate a verse in the quran describing Shu'ayb as a prophet.
-
Z Yes, and there is nothing to stop verse 687 from talking about other people in general, IN FACT, it IS talking about other people in general, not neccessarily prophets(a subset of the others).
The actual Aya is
687
Can you tell me which type of "Min" is used over here?? -
Peace,
381 talks about any later messenger and Muhammad was the latest.
Are you sure?
http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/16/16_89.htm
1689 One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves and We shall bring thee as a witness against these (thy people) and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims.
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.
Are you sure?
http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/25/25_37.htm
al-Furqan (The Criterion, The Standard) 2537
2537
Waqawma noohin lamma kaththaboo alrrusula aghraqnahum wajaAAalnahum lilnnasi ayatan waaAAtadna lilththalimeena AAathaban aleeman
Literal And Noah's nation when they lied/denied/falsified the messengers, We drowned/sunk them, and We made them to the people (as) an evidence/sign , and We prepared to the unjust/oppressors, a painful torture.I suggest that you study how conditional sentences in Arabic come.
I suggest you study basic logic and use common sense instead of posting illogical nonsense to fit hearsay.
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.
Emotional are the hadithists and earlier prophets preached exactly the same message.
http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/2/2_136.htm
2136 Say ye "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord We make no difference between one and another of them And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/16/16_36.htm
1636 For We assuredly sent AMONGST every People an apostle, (with the Command), "Serve Allah, and eschew Evil" of the People were some whom Allah guided, and some on whom error became inevitably (established). So travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who denied (the Truth).Take care and have a great day as well.
peace