To Obey the Prophet(PBUH) is obligatory to every Muslim
-
hlatif wrote
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.
Here you are trapped by your self
The Actual Aya is
661
This Aya clearly showed that the Prophet PBUH prohibited something ONLY for HIMSELF to get good will of his wives.Here Question is why Almighty Allah immediately rectified him on something which was purely his PBUH personal matter.There are only Two possiblities;
1Either Allah wanted to tell the people that no one among them can prohibit himself whatever Allah has made lawful.E.g if you dislike egg plant even then you have to eat.
2Or Allah wanted to tell the Prophet and the pople that Prophet's matters are NOT PERSONAL.He is the Person who has to be followed by the people.Though he had forbidden that thing only himself but it would have been forbidden for the people also because of his status.So Allah immeiately rectified it.Do you think Allah had to send Revelation for such trivial and personal matters ???
{common sense is very uncommon}
Here comes the reason why Allah revealed this Rectification
3321
Hightlighted Word = GOOD EXAMPLE
He is a "GOOD EXAMPLE" for his followers.
Please consult some authenticated dictionary for the word " " and then come for discussion.This Aya Also verifies another important fact that whatever the Holy Prophet told his followers regarding religion is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
If it had been wrong then Allah would have rectified him exactly in the some way as He has done in this Aya.
Unfortunately "Quranists" lack so much knowledge ,I wonder how do they dare even touch the Holy Quran. -
If the prophet was messenger-ing 24/7, it does not matter. If he was prohibiting that, he would have been acting in his capacity as a messenger. Even for himself. So now, to uphold that new argument, we have to delve into even deeper ridiculous notions. So now, the prophet-messenger is teaching al-kitab to himself, reciting al-kitab to himself, and purifying the soul of himself, and getting rebuked for it brickwall
-
If the prophet was messenger-ing 24/7, it does not matter. If he was prohibiting that, he would have been acting in his capacity as a messenger. Even for himself. So now, to uphold that new argument, we have to delve into even deeper ridiculous notions. So now, the prophet-messenger is teaching al-kitab to himself, reciting al-kitab to himself, and purifying the soul of himself, and getting rebuked for it brickwall
Brailess argument as usual.
-
Salaam all,
Pazuzu, thanks for your rant. I do not have a Mulla, but If I had one, I will deliver your regards to him/her.
To answer your question, I will go and explain the patterns of addresses in the Qur'an.
When God has an intimate relationship and communication with a person, God designates that person as Nabi= prophet in the Qur'an. So, prophet is about the personal connection between that person and God.
When a person with that close personal relationship with God is charged with a public message, then that person is messenger, Rasool. So, one cannot be a messenger if he did not have that close personal connection with God.
A person who is designated as both Nabi and messenger is also human and is all three all the time. So, at all times and despite everything, the human tendency to err will always be there, but that personal connection with God will prevent most of them, or make the ones that occurr minimal and non persistent.
When that person commits an error on a personal level, then he will be addressed as himself or prophet and this is what happened in 661. However, when that person commits an error in his charge of delivering the message, then he is mentioned as messenger, as in Jonah's case in 37139-142. Or in case of sura 80, he is mentioned indirectly and through third person addresses, but it was still pointing to error in the messengering.
By the way none of you answered my inquiries about the error of Jonah, the messenger? Now, I gave you my answer. Give yours.
Warner, I want to go back again to Aya 4251, here it is again
Wama kana libasharin an yukallimahu Allahu illa wahyan aw min warai hijabin aw yursila rasoolan fayoohiya biithnihi ma yashao innahu AAaliyyun hakeemun
It is not for human that Allah will speak to him except inspiration or behind a screen or He sends a messenger, so he inspires by His leave what He wills, He is most high, wise.I mentioned the second group for Moses. The third group is God sending a messenger, who is non human to the human. This means that God did not speak to the Human, but spoke to the non human messenger. So, again, the third group, God spoke with voiced words but he was heard by the non human messenger who was charged with delivering to the human. That is the example of the Qur'an as KLM of Allah.
Salaam all and have a peaceful evening.
Hussein
-
Brailess argument as usual.
... ... .......... .. ... ........ ... .. ....................... .. .. .
There is your argument in Braille, my apologies for not catering to the blind of sight.
-
Peace Hussein,
Verse 37139 is a statement of fact..Here is the EXACT VERSE literally translated
139 And That Truly Jonah (was) From The Messengers.
From that point the god gives the story of JONAH and how he came to be one of the Messengers of the god..
140 ITH= when he fled on the loaded ship
142 so the whale/big fish swollowed him in a state of blameworthines.
143 And had it not been that he was one of those who implored
144 He would have stayed in its belly until the Day of Resurrection
145 So We threw him on the shore while he was sick.
146 And We caused seaweed to grow on him
147 And We sent him to a hundred thousand, or moreVERSE 147 was when Jonah became one of the Messengers.
What was Jonah before he was a messenger? He was "blameworthy" or in his words, he was "unjust and oppressive".
2187 And (owner of) the whale/fish when he went away angrily, so he thought/assumed that We will never/not become capable on him, so he called/cried in the darknesses "That (there is) no God except You, Your praise/glory, that I was from the unjust/oppressive
Before Jonah was a messenger, he was from the unjust and oppressive, and in my book, that equates to a rejecter.
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.
Z UMMMMMM....There was no message to damage.
Peace
-
You are correct. "Prophet" is by inference and deduction and self-reference/explanation of the Quran. Yusuf Ali and others are notorious for this.
Either way, it does not address either nabi or rasool directly in this section of the surah. Cross referencing as he did shows it to be addressed to Muhammad, not "prophet". One thig it certainly does not show is the messenger failing.
Please use your common sense; The evidence is thus
1.) Quran was revealed to Muhammad (472)
2.) Muhammad is the last nabi (3340)
2.) Allah commands us to obey the rasool in many verses (002285, 003032, 003132, 004013, 004059, 004069, 005092, 008001, 008020, 008024, 008046, 009071, 024047, 024051, 024052, 024054, 033033, 047033, 049007, 049014, 058013, 064012)
3.) Muhammad is being reminded of his duty as a messenger in 479. It also makes distinct the words/people/roles of rasool and Muhammad- whatever good comes to Muhammad/us, it is from Allah, wherever he/we fails/fail, it is from himself/ourselves.
Now, is Allah commanding us to obey one who erred (point 2), or is Allah commanding us to obey the scripture, which rebukes those who err? Give the Quran a chance to explain itself and it does so, very well.
It is rebuking Muhammad, not the rasool, not the nabi. Rasool by its own virtue is a position that has no room for error. Nabi is rebuked in 601. Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger can only mean the message. It does not mean Muhammad who is being rebuked in this surah, nor can it mean the nabi who is being rebuked in surah 60.
Precisely!
Nun
France is dead voodoo Yeah!
But we still Support France, therefore we can support DEAD. ;D016.021
YUSUFALI (They are things) dead, lifeless nor do they know when they will be raised up.
PICKTHAL (They are) dead, not living. And they know not when they will be raised.
SHAKIR Dead (are they), not living, and they know not when they shall be raised.hlatif wrote
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.
;
Excellent!
... ... .......... .. ... ........ ... .. ....................... .. .. .
There is your argument in Braille, my apologies for not catering to the blind of sight.
218 Deaf, dumb, and BLIND, they will not return (to the path).
Peace Hussein,
Verse 37139 is a statement of fact..Here is the EXACT VERSE literally translated
139 And That Truly Jonah (was) From The Messengers.
From that point the god gives the story of JONAH and how he came to be one of the Messengers of the god..
140 ITH= when he fled on the loaded ship
142 so the whale/big fish swollowed him in a state of blameworthines.
143 And had it not been that he was one of those who implored
144 He would have stayed in its belly until the Day of Resurrection
145 So We threw him on the shore while he was sick.
146 And We caused seaweed to grow on him
147 And We sent him to a hundred thousand, or moreVERSE 147 was when Jonah became one of the Messengers.
What was Jonah before he was a messenger? He was "blameworthy" or in his words, he was "unjust and oppressive".
2187 And (owner of) the whale/fish when he went away angrily, so he thought/assumed that We will never/not become capable on him, so he called/cried in the darknesses "That (there is) no God except You, Your praise/glory, that I was from the unjust/oppressive
Before Jonah was a messenger, he was from the unjust and oppressive, and in my book, that equates to a rejecter.
Z UMMMMMM....There was no message to damage.
Peace
Nice work! Amazing how Qur'an does not contradict!
This is all to justify 250 year old hearsay that a man needs to grow a fist long beard and allowed to beat his wife along with other stupid stuff.
Peace
-
Before Jonah was a messenger, he was from the unjust and oppressive, and in my book, that equates to a rejecter.
That is your dream.
1- You cannot assert that his sin was before he was messenger.
3- You deduce what his sin was, without support in the Qur'an. People in the Qur'an have said the above statement for many things other than rejection. Adam said it when he ate from the tree. He was not a rejecter, but he made a sin. So, when Jonah said the above, then you need to find his sin only from the Qur'an, and not from your "logic" which seems to have many leaps and blind spots. The only thing associated with this statement is being messenger at the beginning of the passage and fleeing on the ship. If he fled his message to the ship, then that is a sin. If he went on the ship without being a messenger, then there is no sin, so what was the sin?Not answering his sin makes false all your theory that you are trying to jab on our throats.
Hussein
-
That is your dream.
1- You cannot assert that his sin was before he was messenger.
3- You deduce what his sin was, without support in the Qur'an. People in the Qur'an have said the above statement for many things other than rejection. Adam said it when he ate from the tree. He was not a rejecter, but he made a sin. So, when Jonah said the above, then you need to find his sin only from the Qur'an, and not from your "logic" which seems to have many leaps and blind spots. The only thing associated with this statement is being messenger at the beginning of the passage and fleeing on the ship. If he fled his message to the ship, then that is a sin. If he went on the ship without being a messenger, then there is no sin, so what was the sin?Not answering his sin makes false all your theory that you are trying to jab on our throats.
Hussein
He was not in a state of messaging, that's for bloody well sure.
-
Peace Hussein,
That is your dream.
1- You cannot assert that his sin was before he was messenger.
3- You deduce what his sin was, without support in the Qur'an. People in the Qur'an have said the above statement for many things other than rejection. Adam said it when he ate from the tree. He was not a rejecter, but he made a sin. So, when Jonah said the above, then you need to find his sin only from the Qur'an, and not from your "logic" which seems to have many leaps and blind spots. The only thing associated with this statement is being messenger at the beginning of the passage and fleeing on the ship. If he fled his message to the ship, then that is a sin. If he went on the ship without being a messenger, then there is no sin, so what was the sin?Not answering his sin makes false all your theory that you are trying to jab on our throats.
HusseinZ In my dream? Read verse 2187 again...
2187 And (owner of) the whale/fish when he went away angrily, so he thought/assumed that We will never/not become capable on him, so he called/cried in the darknesses "That (there is) no God except You, Your praise/glory, that I was from the unjust/oppressive.
Jonah explicitly stated that he was from the "unjust/oppressive", it has nothing to do with my dreams, for the fact is, before Jonah had repented he was from the unjust and oppressive, thereafter, JOnah was forgiven and then given the messenger ROLE.
And with regard to my quranically associating the oppresive/unjust with rejecters,well, thats a mistake, a mistake that has absolutely noithing to do with the fact that Jonah was not a messenger until after his repentance.
Peace
-
prove it. What was he doing in the other Ayat 80 3-7? running his mouth I guess.
Z 2187, try again. It starts with He went angry. His saying La ilaha ill anta is not a proof that was the point of believing in God. Many people say that in the Qur'an when they repent from sins. Also, how can you prove that tho nun was Jonah?
Hussein
-
prove it. What was he doing in the other Ayat 80 3-7? running his mouth I guess.
Z 2187, try again. It starts with He went angry. His saying La ilaha ill anta is not a proof that was the point of believing in God. Many people say that in the Qur'an when they repent from sins. Also, how can you prove that tho nun was Jonah?
Hussein
ZVerse 803-7? Your point...
Anyways,
1.Jonah OBVIOUSLY was NOT a messenger until after his repentance.
2. Jonah never attributed anything falsely to the the god as a messenger, thus your whole arguement is moot, even if we hypothetically assume he was a messenger before his repentance..
3. Prophets obey Messengers, Muhammad was a prophet and a messenger(two distinct roles), thus Muhammad the prophet obeyed the messenger muhammad(the god's message)Peace.
-
What is obvious to you is not that obvious. Here is 37 139-40
130 Jonah was of the messengers
140 When he fled to the shipThe Qur'an is very precise. It would not use "when" for someone who was not at that time, "messenger"
As for the rest of your post. It has no grounds on the business of the divisible trinity of person, prophet and messenger.
That is why you and your friends are dreaming with no proof from the Qur'an to support you.
Take care
Hussein
-
What is obvious to you is not that obvious. Here is 37 139-40
130 Jonah was of the messengers
140 When he fled to the shipThe Qur'an is very precise. It would not use "when" for someone who was not at that time, "messenger"
Z So your position is that before Jonah repented he was an oppressive/unjust Messenger who never delivered a message?
-
Every sin is an act of injustice and that is how the Qur'an describes them. Jonah was a messenger who fled his mission to the ship to travel away, as per that passage. His sin is leaving his job. That is why God reminds Muhammad in another passage not to be like the companion of the whale. He was telling him not to abandon the job as happened with Jonah.
Take care
Hussein
-
Peace Hussein,
Some questions,
How can someone be a messenger when as you say they rejected the role of being a messenger?
I also see you mention he left his job, fact is, he never left his job beause he never accepted the job.
Moroever, how do you equate rejecting the job of being a messenger with sinning-being unjust/oppressive?
Then I'd like for you to show me where in the quran every sin is an act of injustice and oppression...
But more importantly, I would like for you to explain how you equate a messenger attributing something falsely to the god as being the same as someone rejecting the role of messenger, especially in light of the fact, that when Jonah did become a messenger, his message was effective, so effective his people were spared.( to my knowledge that is the only example of a whole people accepting/obeying the message).
-
Salaam Z,
How can someone be a messenger when as you say they rejected the role of being a messenger?
I also see you mention he left his job, fact is, he never left his job beause he never accepted the job.
He was according to 37139-145 and then he fled it. So, he accepted it and then left it. Secondly, when God chooses one to be a messenger, this is not voluntary to take or leave, it becomes obligatory. Therefore leaving it is a sin.
Moroever, how do you equate rejecting the job of being a messenger with sinning-being unjust/oppressive?
Rejecting the role that God gave to them as messengers is a huge sin. The Qur'an is full of Ayat warning the prophet not to leave the message.
Then I'd like for you to show me where in the quran every sin is an act of injustice and oppression...
3133 And vie with one another to attain to your Sustainer's forgiveness and to a paradise as vast as the heavens and the earth, which has been readied for the God-conscious
3134 who spend in time of plenty and in time of hardship, and hold in check their anger, and pardon their fellow-men because God loves the doers of good;3135 and who, when they have committed a shameful deed or have sinned against themselves, remember God and pray that their sins be forgiven - for who but God could forgive sins? - and do not knowingly persist in doing whatever they may have done.
3136 These it is who shall have as their reward forgiveness from their Sustainer, and gardens through which running waters flow, therein to abide and how excellent a reward for those who labour!
In this passage it tells you that the God conscious can Thalamoo anfusahum= trasngress against themselves, yet they were always believers. This tells you that all sin is a transgression and act of injustice. Transgression is not limited to rejection of God.
But more importantly, I would like for you to explain how you equate a messenger attributing something falsely to the god as being the same as someone rejecting the role of messenger, especially in light of the fact, that when Jonah did become a messenger, his message was effective, so effective his people were spared.( to my knowledge that is the only example of a whole people accepting/obeying the message).
A messenger who tampers with the message may distort part of the message but it will still be there. A messenger who leaves the message makes the message not arrive to it's intended audience. The second crime is bigger because it is total while the first one is partial.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Peace hlatif,
He was according to 37139-145 and then he fled it. So, he accepted it and then left it.
You deduce all that from an introduction?
Wainna ilyasa lamina almursaleena
37123 SO ALSO was Elias among those sent (by Us).Wainna lootan lamina almursaleena
37133 SO ALSO was Lut among those sent (by Us).Wainna yoonusa lamina almursaleena
37139 SO ALSO was Jonah among those sent (by Us).When does one exactly become a messenger; isn't there something about a covenant?
Secondly, when God chooses one to be a messenger, this is not voluntary to take or leave, it becomes obligatory. Therefore leaving it is a sin.
Rejecting the role that God gave to them as messengers is a huge sin.Are you sure; how do know all this God stuff?
A messenger who tampers with the message may distort part of the message but it will still be there. A messenger who leaves the message makes the message not arrive to it's intended audience. The second crime is bigger because it is total while the first one is partial.
How do you know what is a greater sin? What else do know about how God works?
Are you sure about may distort part of the message? Which part? How much distortion?
5678 In Book well-GUARDED,
159 We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from CORRUPTION).
37 He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.
The above verses are also for all the 9128-129 rejectors and believers in slight distortions.
You have a great day too.
-
Salaam Nun,
You deduce all that from an introduction?
Wainna ilyasa lamina almursaleena
37123 SO ALSO was Elias among those sent (by Us).Wainna lootan lamina almursaleena
37133 SO ALSO was Lut among those sent (by Us).Wainna yoonusa lamina almursaleena
37139 SO ALSO was Jonah among those sent (by Us).When does one exactly become a messenger; isn't there something about a covenant?
You just beat yourself. It does not matter when they become messengers. Why? because in ALL of them, the recitation deals with them after having become messengers and not before. None of them has a story before his messengership and therefore, Jonah is no exception.
Hussein
Secondly, when God chooses one to be a messenger, this is not voluntary to take or leave, it becomes obligatory. Therefore leaving it is a sin.
Rejecting the role that God gave to them as messengers is a huge sin.Nun
Are you sure; how do know all this God stuff?Contemplate on this
Picktal
7175 Recite unto them the tale of him to whom We gave Our revelations, but he sloughed them off, so Satan overtook him and he became of those who lead astray.7176 And had We willed We could have raised him by their means, but he clung to the earth and followed his own lust. Therefore his likeness is as the likeness of a dog; if thou attackest him he panteth with his tongue out, and if thou leavest him he panteth with his tongue out. Such is the likeness of the people who deny Our revelations. Narrate unto them the history (of the men of old), that haply they may take thought.
The man received the revelation and sloughed off to follow his own desires. It tells you that when a person receives revelation, they have to abide by it as in delivering the message and be honest with it.As for the last part. God protects his message through means of protection and makes sure that it arrives to the audience. Those means include messengers and other people. A messenger who does not deliver the message has a bigger failure than the one who delivers the message with changes in it, because he did not bring it to where it was intended.
Take care,
Hussein
-
Contemplate on this
Picktal
7175 Recite unto them the tale of him to whom We gave Our revelations, but he sloughed them off, so Satan overtook him and he became of those who lead astray.7176 And had We willed We could have raised him by their means, but he clung to the earth and followed his own lust. Therefore his likeness is as the likeness of a dog; if thou attackest him he panteth with his tongue out, and if thou leavest him he panteth with his tongue out. Such is the likeness of the people who deny Our revelations. Narrate unto them the history (of the men of old), that haply they may take thought.
The man received the revelation and sloughed off to follow his own desires. It tells you that when a person receives revelation, they have to abide by it as in delivering the message and be honest with it.As for the last part. God protects his message through means of protection and makes sure that it arrives to the audience. Those means include messengers and other people. A messenger who does not deliver the message has a bigger failure than the one who delivers the message with changes in it, because he did not bring it to where it was intended.
Poor translation. I would have made some ridiculous generalisation about hadeethists here, but I know better. It does not mention divine inspiration/wahi but signs/ayat. Everybody has access to ayat, as the preceding verses and the rest of the Quran shows, but few recieve wahi. Messengers and prophets are made distinct by the revelation/wahi, not by signs/ayat.
That story can be applied to anyone who rejects the signs of God and makes his desire his god. Moreover, 7178 reaffirms the point. Can it be said rasool/nabi are the most guided people on Earth? God does not misguide a person he has chosen to guide. Also in 7181, it makes it even clearer that it cannot be a messenger in error in 7175-176 but a common man. Unless of course, we say God failed to guide