To Obey the Prophet(PBUH) is obligatory to every Muslim
-
Leo,
I will answer your question after you respond to my last post directed to youn (last night) in the following thread..
Are the Quran aloners hurting the refomist cause?
I am not interested in getting the answers.I just wanted to show the depth of knowledge on which Quranists are basing "Quran interpretation".
You are misinterpreting the Aya because you do not know the type of "min" being used in this Aya.
That has become obvious. -
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
God also chooses humans.
Regardless, I believe that aya makes it clear Jonah is a prophet.
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
Is there a problem with that? There is none.
4113 And were it not for Allah's grace upon you and His mercy a party of them had certainly designed to bring you to perdition and they do not bring (aught) to perdition but their own souls, and they shall not harm you in any way, and Allah has revealed to you the Book and the wisdom, and He has taught you what you did not know, and Allah's grace on you is very great.
-
Peace,
God also chooses humans.
Regardless, I believe that aya makes it clear Jonah is a prophet.
Z In no way is it clear. Do you see "Jonah is a prophet", No you don't, thus it isn't clear.. at best, it is an illogical inference.
Is there a problem with that? There is none.
Z No there is not a problem with THAT, though there is a problem when attempting to use the verse as support for Jonah being a prophet.
Nonetheless, my postion stands, the quran does not label all messengers(including jonah), prophets.
Peace opf
-
4113 And were it not for Allah's grace upon you and His mercy a party of them had certainly designed to bring you to perdition and they do not bring (aught) to perdition but their own souls, and they shall not harm you in any way, and Allah has revealed to you the Book and the wisdom, and He has taught you what you did not know, and Allah's grace on you is very great.
The Actual aya is
4113
"PEARL" OF TRANSLATION BY ANOTHER QURANIST
Which Word in the Aya has been translated as "Perdition"??
(Subhanallah) -
Salaam all,
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.
Yes and the Aya that you are pointing out will have to be understood with this other Aya in mind.
Muhammad Assad
2143 Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; ------
So, if we (submitters to the message) are witnesses over the nations and he is a witness over us, then he is a witness over all the people. Yes their messengers will witness over their people and since he will be the witness over all the muslims, including all the prophets, then he is the witness over all humanity, including their prophets.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.Yes again. The use of the plural does not have to mean that there had been plural of messengers. Have you heard of the WE of the Qur'an? This is documented in the use of the Arabs in the language from a very old time. Since we do not know except Noah, then venturing outside what the Qur'an tells us and assuming more messengers than Noah is mere speculation. We do not go by speculation.
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).And you have 2106 talking about abrogation. You have the rules that were cancelled from the people before us as the Sabbath and certain dietary rules. Do you read the Torah and bible all the time to know your practice of Islam?
At the end, Aya 548 tells us that the book that came to Muahmmad declares true what became before it and Muhaiminan= reigning over the older books. This means that the message that came with Muhammad can cancel or add new rules. Yes the basic rule of the worship of the one God applies to all, but other rules change according to the human condition and history.
Z, you can remain in your stubborness. Here is another Aya for you
4163 Lo! We inspire thee as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as we imparted unto David the Psalms;Take care all
Hussein
-
The Actual aya is
4113
"PEARL" OF TRANSLATION BY ANOTHER QURANIST
Which Word in the Aya has been translated as "Perdition"??
(Subhanallah)Ask Mohammed Habib Shakir. What a Quranist!
Well done, yet another irrelevant detail pointed out.
-
Z, you can remain in your stubborness. Here is another Aya for you
4163 Lo! We inspire thee as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as we imparted unto David the Psalms;Z The question is, will Leo correct you or your translation?
Anyways, since you're having trouble locating Jonah being explicitly labelled a prophet in the quran, maybe you might have luck locating Shu'ayb being labelled a prophet in the quran.
-
Peace Hussein, all,
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.
Are you saying that the god is blaming them because they "brought a son of god"? I think that everyone can see how ridiculous your claim is. Clearly any person with a grain of common sense can see that what they actually brought is not the son of god but "the saying that the god has a son". This is confirmed by 1991 where what they "brought" is further described as
- That they called a son for the almighty.
019.091
YUSUFALI That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious.
PICKTHAL That ye ascribe unto the Beneficent a son,
SHAKIR That they ascribe a son to the Beneficent Allah.
KHALIFA Because they claim that the Most Gracious has begotten a son.So clearly this thing/shay'a that they brought is "saying/calling/invoking/ascribing/claiming that the god has a son" not "the son of god".
The rest of your post is a rant. I will leave it at that.
I guess you are evading to answer as usual because you know you can't. Your whole idea about the "uncreated and eternal Quran" is completely useless anyway. It is nothing but idle talk that has zero practical implications to anything in real life. It has already been exposed as a late Abbassid era baseless dogmatic innovation and you can't answer any of the logical can of worms it opens so it is not worth any more of anyone's time.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Speech is saying. You can speak about stand alone entities=Shayin whether real or supposed. God was not pointing to their speech. He was pointing to the supposed stand alone entity that was claimed in their speech. That was the Shayin and not the speech itself.
Take care
Hussein
-
Author is the person who has posted it.
If he had thought it wrong ,he would not have posted itBut
the one who actually made that translation
it is he who made the error
it is he who must have an explanation on why he translated the word like that
so it is he that you have to ask. Because if he couldnt see his mistake, it's bad.
-
Another example of tampering.
Another example of irrelevant fault pointing. Please note that I rarely use my own translations, and I think M.H. Shakir is quite a common translation
So, if you have an issue with "perdition" (please purchase a dictionary and find out what "perdition" means...), take it up with M.H. Shakir.
-
But
the one who actually made that translation
it is he who made the error
it is he who must have an explanation on why he translated the word like that
so it is he that you have to ask. Because if he couldnt see his mistake, it's bad.
Dear
No way;
If I bring some evidence ,then it becomes my responsiblity to defend it.
If someone fires with a revolver on you ,then that person is held responsible not the manufacturer.
Or you will leave the firer and catcht hold of the maker of the revolver.
SubhanaalhaYou seem to be quranist.Because such argument can only be from a Quranist not from any rational one. -
Dear
No way;
If I bring some evidence ,then it becomes my responsiblity to defend it.Fine, but the one who did the translation is not opf. Maybe he can't bring a proof for contradicting what you said, but the one who made the translation is shakir, not opf. He simply used his translation because it is widely used. If it's wrong and you prooved it with strong proof, then fine. But you might have to send an email to shakir too so he can fix his mistake?
The intention in my post was that, if one made a mistake, he better get informed and fix it.
SubhanaalhaYou seem to be quranist.Because such argument can only be from a Quranist not from any rational one.
Haha fast in guesswork and accusation.
Also, my wording may not have been perfect or clearly understandable, my english is not perfect and far from it. If you didnt understood something, tell me before making accusations.
-
Speech is saying. You can speak about stand alone entities=Shayin whether real or supposed. God was not pointing to their speech. He was pointing to the supposed stand alone entity that was claimed in their speech. That was the Shayin and not the speech itself.
Take care
Hussein
Salaam Hussein
If we go back on this thread you have been changing your stance a few times or at least that is the way I understood. One point it is the speech and then it is not the speech but the words or what enters hearts and minds. Then you said it is Gods speech. But the Quran says it is a ?speech of an honored Messenger? and then you said its Gods words. And now again its not just speech but whether the speech is on stand alone entities or otherwise? Don?t you think its good to run back on this thread to see how cohesive these views are and also that they are in line with the Quran. Excuse me if I made any wrong assessment on your thinking.
-
Salaam Warner,
I never said speech of a messenger. You did not read correctly. I said saying=Qawl and I said that saying means
1- words of messenger
2- words of sender.And then I pointed you to 96
As for the above. You may be right I should have used saying instead of speech. Because it said Qaloo= they said. It does not change my answer though. The Shayin is about the entity that they talked about. When you talk about your father. I do not point to your sayings if my interest is in your father, I will point to your father. The issue that matters.
And yes God spoke the Qur'an as He spoke to Moses. However, for us humans, we only have the words because we did not hear him
Take care
Hussein
-
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.
Hussein! You're an INFIDEL! You must be STONED TO DEATH!.
You get my grip??
Those are the things that people here don't do..
They can agree to disagree and no one get STONED.So the people here actually agree on much more on what the scholars of Suniism, Shiism and Ibadhism and other-Ism..
Because they can agree to disagree..Salam
-
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.
Yes and the Aya that you are pointing out will have to be understood with this other Aya in mind.Muhammad Assad
2143 Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; ------
So, if we (submitters to the message) are witnesses over the nations and he is a witness over us, then he is a witness over all the people. Yes their messengers will witness over their people and since he will be the witness over all the muslims, including all the prophets, then he is the witness over all humanity, including their prophets.A witness is someone who bears witness thus was at the scene. We too convey the message which various people will be called to bear witness including the original messenger thus different chains or ?records? exist as evidence and reason ?the messenger? was used in order to transcend time/space (i.e. a person in Arabia cannot be a witness against Eskimoan peoples or Prophets living 1000 years prior or after).
There is no subservience of Prophets to anyone else except God for they all made a convent to deliver the message in truth.
http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/33/33_7.htm
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 covenanthttp//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/33/33_8.htm
338 That ((Allah)) may question the (custodians) of Truth concerning the Truth they (were charged with) And He has prepared for the Unbelievers a grievous Penalty.This is an attempt to fit Qur'an according to unverifiable contradicting hearsay as this...
http//www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.227Question remains on nature of the unnamed messenger in 381 and a topic in itself.
This one is all over the place.
Peace