Good news for all messengers.:)
-
Peace Belal,
When did I say that "rajul" cannot mean man? All I am saying is it can also include those women who go out on foot to earn their livelihood and independently support themselves.
Now, if in a particular society at a particular time all breadwinners happen to be men, then rajul will still mean breadwinner but will refer to men only. Maybe the community of Lot was such a community where all breadwinners (or overwhelming majority of them) happened to be men.
Peace,
(
Nor did We send before thee (as Messengers) any but men, whom We did inspire living in human habitations. Do they not travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those before them? But the home of the Hereafter is best, for those who do right. Will ye not then understand? (12-109)
Did you read in Quran or Bible or Torah about a Female who was ordered to deliever a Messange to her community or who recieved a Book from God? if not, then you need to accept 12-109 as a clear guidence that Messangers were Males
Salam -
Peace Belalhammad,
Hmmm... That is a very interesting verse that you pointed out (12109). I've read that passage many times, but I've never seen it as an identifier of males and females... It definately appears that you are correct - all the previous messengers were MEN (males). And since, in this verse, the message is directed towards Mohammed himself, this means that women before Mohammed's time who were blessed by God (i.e. Maryam, Anna, Deborah, Huldah, etc.) were NOT considered messengers. So, even though God can choose whomever He chooses to carry His message, I'd have to agree that it is VERY UNLIKELY that He would send a female messenger today. I appreciate the correction, and God is knowledgeable of all things... handshake
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace i thin today it is easy for female to deliver messages via electronic media from the comfort of their drawing rooms.
Though personally I don?t believe about female messengers
.
police -
Salam all
Ahmad, I agree with your uderstanding and translation (espacially the dress Code of Messangers peace).
The following is a very well-established that Messangers were all Males
(
Nor did We send before thee (as Messengers) any but men, whom We did inspire living in human habitations. Do they not travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those before them? But the home of the Hereafter is best, for those who do right. Will ye not then understand? (12-109)
I hope that verse is enough for us to agree.
PeacePeace everybody
- The majority of those who believe in GOD
do not do so without committing idol worship.
1400 years ago not many were able to read Quran , majority of God encompasses whole world not local place that book revealed. Majority that many can witness it on this screen 107. Have they guaranteed that an overwhelming retribution
from GOD will not strike them,
or the Hour will not come to them
suddenly, when they least expect it?
There has not been such new media facilities in human history that in seconds majority can be aware of incident happens around the world. Which may take a lesson. - Say, "This is my path
I invite to GOD, on the basis
of a clear proof, and so do those
who follow me. GOD be glorified.
I am not an idol worshiper."
Here I see that messenger saying my Path
God Alone ,Quran Alone.
This messenger invitation is based on clear proof right away on this screen for whole world not only those could read Arabic.
And i agree that this screen would be the presentaion of such guidance. - We did not send before you
except men whom we inspired,
chosen from the people of various
communities. Did they not roam the
earth and see the consequences
for those before them? The abode
of the Hereafter is far better
for those who lead a righteous life.
Would you then understand?
Here clearly God talks to women when he reminds that all messengers before her was Men.
- Just when the messengers despair,
and think that they had been
rejected, our victory comes to them.
We then save whomever we choose,
while our retribution for the guilty people is unavoidable. - In their history, there is a lesson
for those who possess intelligence.
This is not fabricated Hadith;
this (Quran) confirms all previous scriptures,
provides the details of everything, and is
a beacon and mercy for those who believe.
This verse is in process and explains present time when clearly rejects Fabricated Hadith
Hadith was fabricated many years after prophet .
And then Quran could not confirm pervious scripture without having proof for itself. Now we have it and that is clear proof.
GW we should expect a female messenger with clear proof for first time when women are well educated and have access to this screen
GW this messenger would have great impact on today world women and guide them to the path which their children will be REAL MUSLIM 319 understanding messages by themselves not following their parents.
Praise be to God .
I do not see name of prophet in those messages .
Peace
Bahman
Peace.
- The majority of those who believe in GOD
-
Peace Belalhammad and everyone,
Are you placing restrictions on God, claiming that He is incapable of sending a female messenger? God can bestow His blessing and messengership upon anyone whom He sees worthy of the task. According to the Quran, men and women are equal to eachother (3195), and this means that God can grant messengership to anyone He chooses. Just because the word "RAJUL" is used doesn't mean it has to be referring to a male, and I don't think it is gender-specific at all. Throughout the scriptures, God is called "HE" and "HIM", so does that mean that God is a MALE? In this case, "RAJUL" is a general statement that can refer to anyone, male or female.
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace Brother
I want to express my view on this issue...
Firstly, I do not think the other brother is putting any kind of restriction to Allah, he is just saying based on what the got from the Quran... We all agree here alhamdulillah the the Quran should be the criterion... So let it be...
What me and most have noted with the Quran is the precise use of the words... Each word has a precise and minute meaning... For instance, if Allah used the word 'Foot' to mean 'Foot'... it will be like this in all the verses all over the Quran, so wherever you will find the word 'Foot', it will mean foot... This is also known as Self-Reference which is present all over the Quran... You will not find a verse where Allah will use "foot' to mean 'Hands'... that was just an example, hope you got my point...
Same thing... wherever Allah used Rajoul, Rijaal,Rajoulaan... they all mean men... There are many verses where these words appear but I will not put them here unless you request it... However, I will use verse from the Quran and prove you that Rajoul is intended for MALES....
The verse is from Al Baqarah Verse 282.. the famous detailed verse on trade/dealings
Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo itha tadayantum bidaynin ila ajalin musamman faoktuboohu walyaktub baynakum katibun bialAAadli wala yaba katibun an yaktuba kama AAallamahu Allahu falyaktub walyumlili allathee AAalayhi alhaqqu walyattaqi Allaha rabbahu wala yabkhas minhu shayan fain kana allathee AAalayhi alhaqqu safeehan aw daAAeefan aw la yastateeAAu an yumilla huwa falyumlil waliyyuhu bialAAadli waistashhidoo shaheedayni min rijalikum fain lam yakoona rajulayni farajulun waimraatani mimman tardawna mina alshshuhadai an tadilla ihdahuma fatuthakkira ihdahuma alokhra wala yaba alshshuhadao itha ma duAAoo wala tasamoo an taktuboohu sagheeran aw kabeeran ila ajalihi thalikum aqsatu AAinda Allahi waaqwamu lilshshahadati waadna alla tartaboo illa an takoona tijaratan hadiratan tudeeroonaha baynakum falaysa AAalaykum junahun alla taktubooha waashhidoo itha tabayaAAtum wala yudarra katibun wala shaheedun wain tafAAaloo fainnahu fusooqun bikum waittaqoo Allaha wayuAAallimukumu Allahu waAllahu bikulli shayin AAaleemun
O ye who believe! When ye contract a debt for a fixed term, record it in writing. Let a scribe record it in writing between you in (terms of) equity. No scribe should refuse to write as Allah hath taught him, so let him write, and let him who incurreth the debt dictate, and let him observe his duty to Allah his Lord, and diminish naught thereof. But if he who oweth the debt is of low understanding, or weak, or unable himself to dictate, then let the guardian of his interests dictate in (terms of) equity. And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not (at hand) then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses, so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember. And the witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned. Be not averse to writing down (the contract) whether it be small or great, with (record of) the term thereof. That is more equitable in the sight of Allah and more sure for testimony, and the best way of avoiding doubt between you; save only in the case when it is actual merchandise which ye transfer among yourselves from hand to hand. In that case it is no sin for you if ye write it not. And have witnesses when ye sell one to another, and let no harm be done to scribe or witness. If ye do (harm to them) lo! it is a sin in you. Observe your duty to Allah. Allah is teaching you. And Allah is Knower of all things.
In the above verse we have both Rajoul (1 man) and rajoulayn(2 men) are used... Also note the verb YAKOONAAA, this verse is being used for masculine... Had rajoul been feminine, it would have been TAKOONAA.... The Quran has a perfect standard set by Allah so that we does not mismatch these words....
In same verse, you also see the word IMRA'ATAAN (2 women).... again had rajoul mean both men and women... then why use IMRA'AT here?? Too easy for the logic... Allah does not trick on the words... each word has its place and meaning... please do a little research, just locate all verses where you see the word rajoul and study them... You will notice that they all relate to MALES....
If we start swapping males for females in these verses, or even on a single one... chaos will start in the meaning of these verses....
Regards
-
Peace WayFinder,
Firstly, I do not think the other brother is putting any kind of restriction to Allah, he is just saying based on what the got from the Quran... We all agree here alhamdulillah the the Quran should be the criterion... So let it be...
What me and most have noted with the Quran is the precise use of the words... Each word has a precise and minute meaning... For instance, if Allah used the word 'Foot' to mean 'Foot'... it will be like this in all the verses all over the Quran, so wherever you will find the word 'Foot', it will mean foot... This is also known as Self-Reference which is present all over the Quran... You will not find a verse where Allah will use "foot' to mean 'Hands'... that was just an example, hope you got my point...
Same thing... wherever Allah used Rajoul, Rijaal,Rajoulaan... they all mean men... There are many verses where these words appear but I will not put them here unless you request it...
Maybe you didn't notice, but this issue already got resolved between Belalhammad and me a while ago, so it was pointless to go into the issue. Still, however, there are other passages in the Quran where "RAJUL" is literally referring to humans/people, thus not gender-based. God is called "HE" throughout the scriptures, but HE is not necessarily referring to a male in those instances, since God is not contained in a form or gender. The issue of comparison carries no weight either. Many verses in the Quran state that the god sent down the "light" to Mohammed, while others use words like "reminder", "book", "message", "scripture", "reading/quran", "wisdom", etc. These are all interpreted to refer to the same scripture, right? Names and words themselves don't have anything to do with the understanding; what's more important is the context. I'm sure if you read a passage saying, "The man turned on the light", it doesn't mean he turned on the scriptures...
Also, insisting on the concept that God can't send whom He chooses to be a messenger (He can only send males) is placing limitations on Him, when these don't exist. If the god did choose to send a female messenger (hypothetically), who could stop Him from doing so? I only spoke on LIKELIHOOD because the scriptures say that the FORMER PROPHETS and FORMER MESSENGERS were all males, it doesn't say anything about the future messengers.
Plus, male and female equality is stressed in the Quran thoroughly. 3195 points out that women, just like men, can be expelled from their homes, persecuted, exiled, and killed for doing God's work, and many of these things go hand-in-hand with messengership and prophethood. By God's leave, men and women have the same responsibilities, rewards, and punishments, and there is not distinguishments among them (3335). They're only one criterion for distinguishment among God's people (see 4913), and it has nothing to do with messengership.
God places examples throughout the Quran as lessons for those who possess intelligence (12111). The prophets and messengers of the early days of submission and Judaism were leaders, and not only spiritual leaders but leaders of their nations. This is emphasized by the examples of Moses and Mohammed, who both led great nations in the knowledge of God. However, the female Queen Sheba is also mentioned as leading a great nation, regardless of her gender. This makes her just as capable, by God's leave, to lead her people in the knowledge of God as well, just like her counterpart, Solomon. To say that God HASN'T had female messengers is one thing, and it can be researched and verified. However, saying that God CAN'T have female messengers is completely different, and it is blasphemous, completely incompatible with His title of "al-rahman". He does as He wills, and He knows best...
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace WayFinder,
Maybe you didn't notice, but this issue already got resolved between Belalhammad and me a while ago, so it was pointless to go into the issue. Still, however, there are other passages in the Quran where "RAJUL" is literally referring to humans/people, thus not gender-based. God is called "HE" throughout the scriptures, but HE is not necessarily referring to a male in those instances, since God is not contained in a form or gender. The issue of comparison carries no weight either. Many verses in the Quran state that the god sent down the "light" to Mohammed, while others use words like "reminder", "book", "message", "scripture", "reading/quran", "wisdom", etc. These are all interpreted to refer to the same scripture, right? Names and words themselves don't have anything to do with the understanding; what's more important is the context. I'm sure if you read a passage saying, "The man turned on the light", it doesn't mean he turned on the scriptures...
Also, insisting on the concept that God can't send whom He chooses to be a messenger (He can only send males) is placing limitations on Him, when these don't exist. If the god did choose to send a female messenger (hypothetically), who could stop Him from doing so? I only spoke on LIKELIHOOD because the scriptures say that the FORMER PROPHETS and FORMER MESSENGERS were all males, it doesn't say anything about the future messengers.
Plus, male and female equality is stressed in the Quran thoroughly. 3195 points out that women, just like men, can be expelled from their homes, persecuted, exiled, and killed for doing God's work, and many of these things go hand-in-hand with messengership and prophethood. By God's leave, men and women have the same responsibilities, rewards, and punishments, and there is not distinguishments among them (3335). They're only one criterion for distinguishment among God's people (see 4913), and it has nothing to do with messengership.
God places examples throughout the Quran as lessons for those who possess intelligence (12111). The prophets and messengers of the early days of submission and Judaism were leaders, and not only spiritual leaders but leaders of their nations. This is emphasized by the examples of Moses and Mohammed, who both led great nations in the knowledge of God. However, the female Queen Sheba is also mentioned as leading a great nation, regardless of her gender. This makes her just as capable, by God's leave, to lead her people in the knowledge of God as well, just like her counterpart, Solomon. To say that God HASN'T had female messengers is one thing, and it can be researched and verified. However, saying that God CAN'T have female messengers is completely different, and it is blasphemous, completely incompatible with His title of "al-rahman". He does as He wills, and He knows best...
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace Ahmad...
Really sorry... It was an error on my side, more with my browser of something... I did not notice that I was reading page 2 of the thread... Its only when I made the post that came to know that I was mislead in the thread and the issue was already fixed... I read the whole thread and got my 2 cents from it too peace
Your humbleness to accept the truth is very eye catching... Thats how we should all be behaving here.... Sticking to something even when its has been proven wrong is just a big waste of time...
Peace bro...
-
Peace WayFinder,
Your humbleness to accept the truth is very eye catching... Thats how we should all be behaving here.... Sticking to something even when its has been proven wrong is just a big waste of time...
I completely agree with you. The biggest problem occuring in modern-day religion, especially when it comes to monotheistic religions (i.e. Submission/Islam, Christianity, Judaism), is failure to accept misguidance. Too many people refuse to admit when they're wrong about something, and they'd rather defend a faulty position, even after it's been proven wrong, than to approach an issue with an open mind and heart with intentions on finding the truth and bettering themselves. We can all learn something new, and God guides whom He wills. So, we should be happy to learn new information about the scriptures, and it will get us closer to the right/straight path, God willing. Your humbleness is clear as well, and the god will not overlook righteousness. May He lead us all to agree and gain understanding of His message...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace WayFinder,
Correct me if I am wrong, but "rajul" is a masculine word and hence the usage of yakoona. Just because a word is masculine does not mean that it always means man. The context determines if it means only man or includes woman too. You are right that according to context of 2282 it can only mean man because it is being contrasted with "imraat". Where it is contrasted with "nisaa" or used by itself, however, it can include woman too, depending on the context of usage.
Its main meaning is "the one who goes on foot", which could be male or female, even though the word "rajul" is masculine. It implies "breadwinner" or the one who goes on foot to earn livelihood, as contrasted with "nisaa", or the one who stays behind, which could also be male or female depending on the context.
434 The rijaal are supporters of the nisaa ................................
If a loser husband stays home and plays video games all day long and his wife goes out to work and earn livelihood and supports the loser man, then that would contradict the translation of 434 as "men are supporters of women", which would imply that all men are always supporters of women, which is not the case in reality.
-
Peace WayFinder,
Correct me if I am wrong, but "rajul" is a masculine word and hence the usage of yakoona. Just because a word is masculine does not mean that it always means man. The context determines if it means only man or includes woman too. You are right that according to context of 2282 it can only mean man because it is being contrasted with "imraat". Where it is contrasted with "nisaa" or used by itself, however, it can include woman too, depending on the context of usage.
Its main meaning is "the one who goes on foot", which could be male or female, even though the word "rajul" is masculine. It implies "breadwinner" or the one who goes on foot to earn livelihood, as contrasted with "nisaa", or the one who stays behind, which could also be male or female depending on the context.
434 The rijaal are supporters of the nisaa ................................
If a loser husband stays home and plays video games all day long and his wife goes out to work and earn livelihood and supports the loser man, then that would contradict the translation of 434 as "men are supporters of women", which would imply that all men are always supporters of women, which is not the case in reality.
Peace brother
Plain right on this one... it makes sense...
Will do some more digging on this one in the future GW...
May Allah keep us among those whom He has guided...
Regards
-
Peace Truthseeker11,
Its main meaning is "the one who goes on foot", which could be male or female, even though the word "rajul" is masculine. It implies "breadwinner" or the one who goes on foot to earn livelihood, as contrasted with "nisaa", or the one who stays behind, which could also be male or female depending on the context.
434 The rijaal are supporters of the nisaa ................................
If a loser husband stays home and plays video games all day long and his wife goes out to work and earn livelihood and supports the loser man, then that would contradict the translation of 434 as "men are supporters of women", which would imply that all men are always supporters of women, which is not the case in reality.
This is a very good analogy, and it is completely accurate. Since the Quran is never inaccurate, proven false due to contradiction, then "RAJUL" can't always be referring to men, even though it does in this sense. That is a very enlightening comparison, and it shows the truth of the matter with regards to the Quran - the context is the most appropriate way of determining the meanings of Quranic words, not the Arabic-dictionary definitions. God knows best, and He guides those whom He wills.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
434 The rijaal are supporters of the nisaa ................................
If a loser husband stays home and plays video games all day long and his wife goes out to work and earn livelihood and supports the loser man, then that would contradict the translation of 434 as "men are supporters of women", which would imply that all men are always supporters of women, which is not the case in reality.
Peace all,
Reality.... rotfl
Since when humans' real behaviors (Reality) are guided by God's Laws. Is it the reality that Marriage can be between Man and Man or Female and Female, which is not matching with the Quran; should we say that such reality would contradict the Translation of the verses that speaks about Marriage laws?
When God guide in the Quran, He guides the True believers whom will never accept to live off a women. (
Yousuf Ali
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their, beds (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (34)These are guidences for the Believers and not for the Loosers
Peace
-
Peace all,
Reality.... rotfl
Since when humans' real behaviors (Reality) are guided by God's Laws. Is it the reality that Marriage can be between Man and Man or Female and Female, which is not matching with the Quran; should we say that such reality would contradict the Translation of the verses that speaks about Marriage laws?
When God guide in the Quran, He guides the True believers whom will never accept to live off a women. (
Yousuf Ali
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their, beds (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (34)These are guidences for the Believers and not for the Loosers )
Peace
salam,
as i read the translation it says ye fear disloyalty and ill conduct.......in arabic nooshoozahonna
i never new what that word meant but as we have known it from that aya that a wife must be obedient to the husband in every sence, and men have used it endless times to justify beating there wives........ now my question is this word meaning cheating on a husband or actually being disobedient, because these are clearly 2 different things -
salam,
as i read the translation it says ye fear disloyalty and ill conduct.......in arabic nooshoozahonna
i never new what that word meant but as we have known it from that aya that a wife must be obedient to the husband in every sence, and men have used it endless times to justify beating there wives........ now my question is this word meaning cheating on a husband or actually being disobedient, because these are clearly 2 different thingsPeace anna,
I do not have a clear answer on this; but, as a man, I believe that Man and Woman relationship has to be built on respect to each others; so, if a woman disrespects here husbend, while he is respecting and treating her as God ordered him (he is a true believer), then the above verse can be followed.
Peace -
Peace Anna,
as i read the translation it says ye fear disloyalty and ill conduct.......in arabic nooshoozahonna
i never new what that word meant but as we have known it from that aya that a wife must be obedient to the husband in every sence, and men have used it endless times to justify beating there wives........ now my question is this word meaning cheating on a husband or actually being disobedient, because these are clearly 2 different thingsThat is a complete mistranslation, and Yousef Ali used the hadeeths to govern his ideas on the matter. The Arabic scriptures don't say anything about 'fearing ill conduct', and they don't imply beating women either, no matter how "lightly". That's a mistranslation. Here's a clearer look at what the scripture is actually saying
The men are to support the women by what GOD has bestowed on them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright women are dutiful; keeping private the personal matters for what GOD keeps watch over. As for those women from whom you fear desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate from them. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; GOD is High, Great. (434)
GOD doesn't teach us to beat our wives, and He doesn't approve of injustice. Also, "ill conduct" in nowhere in that verse either, and Yousef Ali invented that word to support his views on spousal abuse. His translation is false...
Peace,
Ahmad