To Obey the Prophet(PBUH) is obligatory to every Muslim

hlatif

Salaam OPF,

I asked you for clear unambiguous evidence of separation between the messenger, Muhammad, the person Muhammad and the prophet Muhammad and you failed to bring it. You resort to your logic which has no credibility in my view. Not because logic does not have credibility, but I have not been impressed with yours. This is not to put you down, but you have to prove something to me with text, not with your logic. The text is where we are debating and is the criterion. The text is not questioned, while logic, yours or mine, is. In any case, here is Translation of Muhammad Assad of the beginning of the Sura

801 HE FROWNED and turned away

802 because the blind man approached him!

803 Yet for all thou didst know, he might perhaps have grown in purity,

804 or have been reminded , and helped by this reminder.

805 Now as for him who believes himself to be self-sufficient

806 to him didst thou give thy whole attention,

807 although thou art not accountable for his failure to attain to purity;

808 but as for him who came unto thee full of eagerness

809 and in awe

8010 him didst thou disregard!

8011 NAY, VERILY, these are but a reminder

8012 and so, whoever is willing may remember Him

If this passage is not speaking to someone in his capacity as messenger, then there are no messengers. Paying attention to particular person in the messaging and ignoring another is a description of a messenger at work.

In any case, you guys never proved that messengers do not err. Some went to a convoluted explanation of Jonah's error. However, I have not seen the response to my question If Jonah did not leave his messengership when he went on the ship, then what is sinful about going on the ship? and why was Muhammad warned not to be like him in error in 6948?

Take care and have a good evening.

Hussein

zeljko67

Peace Husse

Z, If Jonah was not a messenger when he went on the ship, then why was he blameworthy? There is nothing blameworthy for going on a ship. Couple this with 6848 where God warned Muhammad not to be like the "companion of the big fish". Why would God ask him not to be like "the companion of the big fish"? because they had something in common. What was it? They both were messengers and facing tough resistance.

ZAGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN Hussein,first what in the world would lead you to conclude that Jonah can only be blameworthy if he is a "messenger"? (geez..) anyways..Jonah had rejected god's call in BEING a messenger to the people of Ninveh..it was Jonah the person who REJECTED the god, thus it was JONAH the person who was blameworthy. Thereafter, JOnah repented and then BECAME a Messenger to the people of Ninveh.

But this is ALL MOOT /IRRELVANT, for the FACT is, even if (hypothetically) JONAH was a messenger(before being swallowed by the whale), his abandoning the message is in noway comprarable to attributing something falsely to the god while being the god's messenger..

With regards to verse 6848, NON SEQUITER, the god instructing muhammad to be patient for his judgement in now way makes Jonah a messenger at the time of his being swallowed by a fish...

AND AGAIN..

But this is ALL MOOT /IRRELVANT, for the FACT is, even if (hypothetically) JONAH was a messenger(before being swallowed by the whale), his abandoning the message is in noway comprarable to attributing something falsely to the god while being the god's messenger..

As for my response to analogy, it is perfect and you know it. The messenger obeys God and obeys himself in what he orders. He has to abide by his own rules.

Z SIGH..If you are unable to see the obvious flaws in your trinity arguement, then let me be the first to say, I am wasting my time..

They did not respond to the calling of the messenger. When the messenger calls, he is ordering and has to be obeyed. Yet that was an event limited to time and place and group. Not absolute and obligatory to all, as Samia asserted and as you assert.

Z oy caramba!!! You totally ignored my points..

Good day

Raj-ah

Nun

France is DEAD! Nationalism is made up ideology which to believe in is a form of idolatry; likewise so is the pretention that DEAD Prophets (3144) can hear you similar to Christianity.

France is dead voodoo Yeah!
But we still Support France, therefore we can support DEAD. ;D

Johny-k

Quote
Peace "Rajah",
The point your missing is that theres a difference between Muhammad the man and Muhammad the messenger. Muhammad wasnt a messenger 24 hrs a day. ONLY AT SPECIFIC TIMES WHILST HE DELIVERS THE PURE MESSAGE OF GOD WAS HE A MESSENGER AND IN THAT RELATION HES TO BE OBEYED BECAUSE AT THAT MOMENT HIS HUMAN ACTIVITY IS SHUT OFF AND GOD IS DIRECTLY COMMUNICATING THROUGH HIM.

Rajah

Well, well, well what do you say..... A part time Messanger of God
Please please my dear friends just to justify your thoughts don't try to make fun out of Islam.
A messanger is messanger throughout! The Ayats you have quoted have nothing to do with part time or full time messanger ship

Rajah

Now coming back to part time Messanger ship I am sorry to say but this is the most funny thing I ever read regarding the messanger ship of Muhammad.

When a messanger is only a messanger when Allah is communicating with him, then how was it possible to understand Quran for the people of that time.
I mean to say for example when the word "Rehman" was first revealed who told the people of that time about Rehman?? and when the word Rehman was expalined communication was Shut (as you put it).
Allah says in Quran
Progressive Muslims"
Indeed, in the messenger of God a good example has been set for you for he who seeks God and the last day and thinks constantly about God
In messanger of God a good example has been set; definitly this is about his Chracter through which, he was able to gain companions those who offered their lives for him.
If he would have been a part time messanger then during his communication with Allah he would had obeyed, but after that he would be free as a ordinary human, for example to lie, to drink exessive wine, etc.

Rajah

Quote
Progressive Muslims"
And We have not sent you except as a mercy to the worlds.

This command is continous and does not limits to the time of Communication, How can be a part time messanger be mercy to the worlds???
then again in verse 1779
"
Quote
Progressive Muslims"
And from the night you shall mediate upon it as you please, perhaps your Lord would grant you to a high rank
.

This is a continous command and not only for time of communication, We can go on and on but to make it short it is very clear that there is no such a thing as PART TIME MESSANGER. Messanger is messanger for all times and he has to implement upon his life what is revealed unto him and set an example for those who follow.

Progressive Muslims"
So that you may believe in God and His messenger, and that you may support Him, honour Him, and glorify Him, morning and night. verse 489

No believing man or believing woman, if GOD and His messenger issue any command, has any choice regarding that command. Anyone who disobeys GOD and His messenger has gone far astray

Recall that you said to the one who was blessed by GOD, and blessed by you, "Keep your wife and reverence GOD," and you hid inside yourself what GOD wished to proclaim. Thus, you feared the people, when you were supposed to fear only GOD. When Zeid was completely through with his wife, we had you marry her, in order to establish the precedent that a man may marry the divorced wife of his adopted son. GOD's commands shall be done

Quote from Rajah
Muhammad Feared some of the people and that is very natrual, a Human fears humans on different basis on different occassions, even though his fear was not for himself but for ISlam to be defamed, but Still Allah did not like it and issued a warning to messenger, This clearly indicates that Prophet was a Human and Humans commit mistakes. But does it says any thing regarding the respect or disrespect for the Prophet, or you think basing on this warning from Allah to the Prophet we can assume that he is "Just" a human.
Actually you are basing your whole argument of part time messenger on these verses and that is not likely be to true. You think that when a Prophet commits an error or mistake at that particular time he is not a messenger, that is due to your assumption that a Prophet or Messenger is Error Free and that not is the case, No Human is Error free not even messengers. I think it is very simple there are other verses too when Allah has warned his messengers for commiting mistakes but that certainly does not means that they were Part time messengers

hlatif

Salaam Z,

ZAGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN Hussein,first what in the world would lead you to conclude that Jonah can only be blameworthy if he is a "messenger"? (geez..) anyways..Jonah had rejected god's call in BEING a messenger to the people of Ninveh..it was Jonah the person who REJECTED the god, thus it was JONAH the person who was blameworthy. Thereafter, JOnah repented and then BECAME a Messenger to the people of Ninveh.

To answer your question. I will give you the synopsis fom the passage in sura 37139-. The passage goes like this
139 Jonah one of the messengers.
140 ITH= as/ when he fled on the loaded ship
142 so the whale/big fish swollowed him in a state of blameworthines.

You put them together. My version He was a messenger and fled his mission to the ship so he was blameworthy when he was swallowed. It is based solely on the passage.

Your version He became messenger after that.

My question then what was blameworthy? since the going on the ship is not blameworthy.

Your version he was a rejector.

My challenge where did you get that? there is nowhere in the Qur'an that mentions him as a rejector and definitely not here. You are adding to the Qur'an and that is inappropriate. Don't you think that the Qur'an is self explanatory? So, bring your proof from the Qur'an. A proof that eludes you.

Another challenge If you want to prove my assessment wrong, then bring a suitable alternative, not something you dream of. Suitable alternative does not add "logic" nor "extra quranic dreams". It has to explain why he was blameworthy when he was swallowed.

As for this statement

But this is ALL MOOT /IRRELVANT, for the FACT is, even if (hypothetically) JONAH was a messenger(before being swallowed by the whale), his abandoning the message is in noway comprarable to attributing something falsely to the god while being the god's messenger..

Wrong. A messenger who attributes falsely something to God damages some of the message. A messenger who abandons his whole mission, damages the whole message.

Take care and have a great day.

Hussein

warner

Hussein Ok, Words are conceptual. KLM as a concept means voiced words by speaker and comprehended by the listener. When speech comes from humans as Zachariah, it always comes from their lips. So, the lip movement can be considered an acceptable exception to voiced speech for humans when and only when indicated by the context as happened clearly with Zachariah.

KLM for entities other than humans share the concept of voiced words and comprehended by the speaker as the general rule. How and why and where that voiced word comes from depends on the nature of the entity. So, when speech is generated electronically by a computer (for weather emergencies and so on), it is KLM but not coming from a mouth and lung. When God KLM then we know that he voiced words that were comprehended by His listeners, (Moses and so on). How God spoke and all the other specifics is not provided in the Qur'an and therefore one should not speculate. What one should accept is what the Qur'an said GOD KALLAMA MOSES= He spoke words to Moses and Qur'an is Kalam Allah= The spoken word of Allah.

In short, just because lip movement is associated with Kalam of man, it does not have to be present nor be associated with God's speech nor the speech of any other entity as the computer. How God's speech comes out is God's business.

Salaam Hussein

The use and the choice of words in the Quran is powerful evidence that it is not from a human being. I am glad that we agree that God does not have a mouth and lips like humans so as to make His communications ?spoken words?. If ?How God's speech comes out is God's business? how did it became the business of some people to claim it is the ?spoken words of Allah? since even silent lip movement is necessary for sign language to be Kalam according to your explanation of 341. It maybe very well ?unspoken words? for instance like a wireless data transfer. Which leads us to wahy/inspiration.

The following is another verse from the same incident of Zakariya mentioned in 341 and here the word used is awha/wahy/inspired.

1911
Pickthall Then he came forth unto his people from the sanctuary, and signified to them Glorify your Lord at break of day and fall of night.

Transliteration Fakhraja 'ala_ qaumihi minal mihra_bi fa auha_ ilaihim an sab bihu_ bukrataw wa asyiy ya_

So if Zakariya tukalliman with silently moving his lips and his people were inspired then can there be not a million possibilities how God can yukalliman and inspire His message. How much do we know about how He speaks ?

Also again on Zakariya. What is the meaning of ramza_(n) , in 341 according to Lisan ?

For the definition of Kalam you give much importance to ?voiced speech? and to ?mouth and lip movement? which does not apply to Allah. Same goes for the sprit or the dead. .I think you were influenced by the Lisan. Let me quote you here.

The 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.

Maybe the Arabic word for speech is antaqa(N Tay Q) and not Kalam as in the following verse. Also remember the speech of birds with Sulaiman.

41 21

Yusuf Ali They will say to their skins "Why bear ye witness against us?" They will say "Allah hath given us speech (He) Who giveth speech to everything He created you for the first time and unto Him were ye to return.

Transliteration Wa qa_lu_ li julu_dihim lima sahidtum alaina_ qa_lu_ antaqanal la_hul lazi antaqa kul la sai iw wa huwa khalaqkum aw wala mar ratiw wa ilaihi turjau_n

Also God informs us how He communicates.

42 51

It is not fitting for a man that Allah should communicate to him except by inspiration or from behind a veil or by the sending of a Messenger to reveal with Allah's permission what Allah wills for He is Most High Most Wise.

Wa ma_ ka_na libasarin ay yukal limahul la_hu wahyan au miw wara_i hija_bin au yursila rasu_lan fayu_hiya bi iznihi ma_ yasya_ inahu_ aliy yun hakim

The above has 3 modes God communicates with man and not three modes of how Allah speaks.

Also look at this verse

36 65

Yusuf Ali That Day shall We set a seal on their mouths. But their hands will speak to Us and their feet bear witness to all that they did.

Transliteration Alyauma nakhtimu ala_ afwa_hihim wa tukal limuna_ aidihim wa tashadu arjuluhum bima_ ka_nu_ yaksibu_n

It is a better translation to say ?hands will communicate to us?. When we see the many verses with kalam I think it is a word laden with meaning such as communicate rather than speech.

I find the meaning of ?Kalam? as spoken words (also sometimes unspoken words with lip movements) and therefore ?Kalamallah? as spoken words of Allah is a later manipulation to prove that the Quran is ?spoken words? of God and thereby eternal and uncreated.

unknownuser

The use and the choice of words in the Quran is powerful evidence it is not from a human being.

Exactly )

hlatif

Salaam Warner,

You have a big hole in your argument. You based it on taking Zachariah's use of the lip language to make Kalam mean not necessarily voiced speech. However, you forgot that the Qur'an indicated clearly that lip movement is the exception in KLM and not the rule. Now you want to switch over and make the exception into the rule without any Aya indicating that it is an exception. Linguistically, you have no support.

As for NTQ, it can mean speech but is reserved to entities that do not usually speak.

As for Aya 4251, it indicates big exception at the beginning ILLA. It also does not negate speech as in spoken words. for example, it gives one of the ways God speaks to people is "min warai hijab= From behind a screan". This means that He can speak to people without being seen by them. This is what happened to Moses. He spoke to God but could not be seen by Him. If Moses did not speak to God directly, then there is nothing to make him any different from any other prophet/messenger. However, the Qur'an clearly gives him the distinction of speaking to God and of God speaking to him.

Yes, the Qur'an is a great literary work. Unforunately, many of you guys want to make that literary miracle less so by playing with the language according to your biases.

I do not mind Lisan Al Arab being corrupted. I have a better alternative to understand the Qur'an. As for you, the moment you make dictionaries corrupted, then your whole Qur'an alone argument fails miserably. You will end up depending on your pure bias in understanding the Qur'an. There are many examples of that here.

Take care and have a great day.

Hussein

unknownuser

Yes, the Qur'an is a great literary work. Unforunately, many of you guys want to make that literary miracle less so by playing with the language according to your biases.

Good, you acknowledge that. Now please explain why it is "obey the messenger" and not "obey the prophet". If they are the same, then it should be perfectly valid.

unknownuser

hlatif wrote

I asked you for clear unambiguous evidence of separation between the messenger, Muhammad, the person Muhammad and the prophet Muhammad and you failed to bring it. You resort to your logic which has no credibility in my view. Not because logic does not have credibility, but I have not been impressed with yours. This is not to put you down, but you have to prove something to me with text, not with your logic. The text is where we are debating and is the criterion. The text is not questioned, while logic, yours or mine, is.

OK, here's proof for you that Muhamad the Messenger is NOT the same as Muhamad the Prophet (person)

Open your eyes, for once in your life, and read the following

{ O you prophet, why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you, seeking to please your wives? God is Forgiver, Merciful.}.....

Now tell me When the PROPHET MUhamad prohibited himself from something that was made lawful for him, did he receive revelation? (wahy) that commanded him to do so?

Let me rephrase that by shedding some light on your fallacious dogma, which teaches you that every single word which ever came out of Muhamad's mouth was revelation

Had God previously sent revelation to Muhamad inspiring him to prohibit something which was made lawful for him, then asked him, as per 661, why he made that prohibition?

The verse begins with ' O YOU PROPHET' not ' O YOU MESSENGER' . If it had begun with ' O YOU MESSENGER' then the entire Koran would go straight to the trash can.

According to your yellowed and deseased tradition books, invented by corrupted Persian clergy, the "ASBAB NUZOUL" for verse 661 was that Muhamad became upset with one of his wives becase of jealous gossip and rumors that had started to spread, so he prohibited humself from eating a kind of sweet honey liquid.

Now answer this simple question WAS THIS PROHIBITION ALSO REVELATION??

Once God removes the veil that your Holy Bearded Mullahs have placed over your eyes, you will notice that God NEVER says "Obey the Prophet" in the Koran, nor does He say "Obey Muhamad" (PERSONALLY).
God says "OBEY THE MESENGER", irrespective of his personal life or habits. Obeying the Messenger is following the MESSAGE that was revealed to him. The message is the Koran, PERIOD.
(NOt the way he dressed or ate or slept or drank or urinated. All these are not part of the message. By claiming that they are, you are disgarding the Koran and idolizing the person of Muhamad).

Muhamad the human prophet died 14 centuries ago. The verses dealing with him, his homes, his wives, what he said to them, how he dressed and ate and slept, etc...are circumstancial and historic. They are bo longer applicable today. Otherwise, how would you apply the following verse TODAY?

{ O wives of the prophet, you are not like any other women. If you are righteous, then do not speak too softly, lest those with disease in their hearts will move with desire; you shall speak in an honorable manner}...

Note God says "WIVES OF THE PROPHET" and never "WIVES OF THE MESSENGER".

Therefore - And I could care less if you accept my cocnclusion or not - when Muhamad (THE PROPHET) prohibitted himself from eating what God had made lawful to him, he was acting of his own free will, as a HUMAN prone to error, and not as a Messenger receiving revelation.

Until you understand the difference between the two concepts, you will be in the darkness of ignorance and stagnation for all eternity, and perhaps then you will understand why other nations of the world have progressed more than us.

By confusing Prophet(circumstancial) with Messenger (eternal), and claiming that every single word that Muhamad ever uttered was revelation, a dogmatic belief brought about by a Satanic interpretation of the verses of chapter 53, you are

1- Mixing the of Muhamad with the of God, which is tantamout to unpardonable SHIRK.
2- You are idolizing Muhamad, but because of your blindness you will probably never see this truth.
3- You are turning Muhamad, whom you claim to revere and respect, into an automaton, a robot incapable of speaking by his own free will.

The idea the sectarians can't seem to get through their thick skulls is that when we reject Hadiths, we are not rejecting Muhamad. We are rejecting the LIES THAT WERE ATRIBUTED TO HIM.

Verses 661 blows your argument completely out of the water.

Have a nice day, and send my regards to your Mullah.

;

Leoxyz