To Obey the Prophet(PBUH) is obligatory to every Muslim
-
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
-
http//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
The actual Aya is
338
How could you deduct that they were "Charged with" the truth ??
Just curious or a typical Quranist Somersault ?? -
The actual Aya is
338
How could you deduct that they were "Charged with" the truth ??
Just curious or a typical Quranist Somersault ??Yusuf Ali, what a great Quranist.
But this is unsurprising, coming from someone who believes in magical flying horses with wings and super-Arabs whose very spit could quench the thirst of 500.
-
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
Salaam
Certainly the Messenger will witness and the Quran tells what he will say on the day of the Judgment on his witnessing.
25 30 And the messenger will say O my Lord! truly my people neglected this Qur'an
Wa qa_lar rasu_lu ya_ rab bi in na qaumit tahazu_ ha_zal qur a_na mahju_ra_
-
Salaam all,
Jafar, I have not called anyone of you infidel. Many of you believe that I am an idol worshipper. As a matter of fact, one the main aspects of the early history of Sunnism is the extreme reluctance at calling people Kafir, whereas the other groups were very free at declaring apostacy on others. This means that people like Bin Laden and the like are not really Sunnis despite their claim otherwise.
Nun, the condition for the witness is knowledge of facts. It does not matter how the facts came to be known or that they needed to be heard or seen or whatever. So, the messenger Muhammad will be a witness because God gave him knowledge of those facts and it does not matter how God gave him that knowledge.
Warner, I will give you two proofs
Muhammad Assad
4164 and as apostles whom We have mentioned to thee ere this, as well as apostles whom We have not mentioned to thee; and as God spoke His word unto MosesThe other one is 96 because Kalam which is the word in the Aya, can only be a spoken word according to Lisan Al Arab volume 13 page 39.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Salaam all,
Warner, I will give you two proofs
Muhammad Assad
4164 and as apostles whom We have mentioned to thee ere this, as well as apostles whom We have not mentioned to thee; and as God spoke His word unto MosesThe other one is 96 because Kalam which is the word in the Aya, can only be a spoken word according to Lisan Al Arab volume 13 page 39.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
Salaam haltif
The first ne is one verse 4164 (no 179). The translation of the part in blue is not accurate no"words" is there. It is ( wa kallama allaahu muusaa takleema) The word "takleema" is not "kalaama". This kind of verbal noun derived from the same principal verb serves as emphasis. Thus it simply means and God did speak to Moses. The qur'aan also tells us what God said to Moses 2011-24;36-47.
The second verse is about the qur'aan, I agree.
Unless you mean that what God said to Moses is in the qur'aan, therefore God spoke the quraan to Moses, but I do not see that this is a valid argument. Is this what you mean? Can you put it in such a way that it becomes a valid argument?