Good news for all messengers.:)

[SwedenMajidah]

Peace,

Sis Becca hello again Maria, that is what i found too. the Submitters are better guided than other Sects of Islam, but they are incorrect about many things too. definitely the Hadiths are wrong. also, the Quran clearly says you are to believe in the Previous Scriptures. Muslims excuse for rejecting the Bible is invalid. because it was already altered before the Quran. most of the Bible is true and important...with the Quran we know what was altered. (Parts 46,50 and 74) peace again

Maria

[SwedenMajidah]

Peace,

Sorry this is the first part of her replies to me!

Sis Becca hello Maria,
nice to meet you.
i was raised Christian. my Grandfather was a Preacher. when i was in my early 20's i become one of Jehovah's Witnesses...for 13 years. then i left and wasn't any religion for about 7 years...
WhereIsTruth (50 minutes ago) Show Hide Marked as spam Reply ...in January of 07 i discovered the Quran.
i briefly converted to Islam but discovered they follow these books called Hadiths...which were a contradiction to the Quran. it was then that i realized i was a Believer and i have been doing this preaching work, delivering the dual-Message of the Bible and Quran, ever since.
peace upon you
WhereIsTruth (48 minutes ago) Show Hide Marked as spam Reply p.s.
i only speak English

Maria

[truthseeker11]

Peace everyone,

It can only be Lord alone in 1746 and not quran alone, according to Arabic grammar and linguistics. The translation quoted by Ahmad is incorrect. The correct translation is

1746 And we place shields over their hearts, that they should not understand it, and a deafness in their ears. And if you mention your Lord alone in the Qur?an, they run away turning their backs in aversion.

The Arabic word is "wahdahu" which can only refer to "rabbaka" according to Arabic grammar, and cannot refer to "alquran"; it does not matter where the position of "wahdahu" is. If it was "wahdihi", then it would be referring to alquran.

In addition to that, the context of 1746 starting from 1739 is about God alone versus other gods with Him, so it has to be Lord alone in 1746.

1739 That is from what your Lord has inspired to you of the wisdom. And do not make with God another god, or you will be cast into Hell, blameworthy and regretting.
1740 Has your Lord preferred for you the males, while He takes the females as angels? You are indeed saying a great thing!
1741 And We have clarified in this Qur?an so they may remember, but it only increases their aversion!
1742 Say ?If there had been gods with Him as they say, then they would have tried to gain a way to the throne.?
1743 Be He glorified and High from what they say, a great falsehood.
1744 He is glorified by the seven universes and the Earth and who is in them, and there is not a thing but it glorifies His praise, but you do not comprehend their glorification. He is Compassionate, Forgiving.
1745 And when you read the Qur?an, We place between you and those who do not believe in the Hereafter an invisible barrier.
1746 And we place shields over their hearts, that they should not understand it, and a deafness in their ears. And if you mention your Lord alone in the Qur?an, they run away turning their backs in aversion.

The whole passage is about "tawheed" or oneness of God and mention and glorification of God alone i.e. Lord alone, and not about "quran alone". Please note that 1741 is similar to 1746, both clearly referring to increase in their aversion because of oneness of God being clarified/mentioned in al-quran

1741 And We have clarified in this Qur?an so they may remember, but it only increases their aversion!
1746 .......................And if you mention your Lord alone in the Qur?an, they run away turning their backs in aversion.

Please see the discussion in the following threads on this issue

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=15158.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13288.0

[belH]

Peace Belal,

434 The rijaal are supporters of the nisaa ....................................

According to your theory, if "rijaal" in 434 always means men, then it would mean that men are always supporters of women, and that women can never support men. This is completely illogical.

Is it Logical that God calls a Man

&#65279 (

What if the husband gets disabled? According to your narrow mindedness and mistranslation, the wife cannot support the disabled husband because she is not among the "qawwamoon", and she can tell her disabled husband "men are supporters of women so even though you are disabled and cannot go out on foot to earn livelihood and support me, I am just going to sit at home and do nothing to support ourselves, even though I am well qualified to get a nice job, and you need to support me; I don't care if you are disabled".

nope
If a man gets disable and his wife supports him, the Man will still be the Head of the household and the Female will still be

(

Did you get it with your WIDE Minde

Please reread my first post to you so you would know how to reply; Disputing is never been fun.
yes

[truthseeker11]

Peace Belal,

There are different issues being discussed in 434 which are separate.

FIRST PART ------> The rijaal/"the ones who go out on foot" are to support the nisaa/"the ones who stay behind" by what God has bestowed on them over one another and for what they spend of their money.

END OF FIRST PART

SECOND PART ------> 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.

"Saalihaat qaanitaat haafizaat lilghaib" is not referring to "nisaa" but dealing with a separate issue. Both parts explain separate issues. The first part about "rijaal"/"the ones who go out on foot" (could be male or female) being "qawwamoon", and the second part about upright women being dutiful and keeping private the personal matters.

[belH]

Peace Belal,

There are different issues being discussed in 434 which are separate.

FIRST PART ------> The rijaal/"the ones who go out on foot" are to support the nisaa/"the ones who stay behind" by what God has bestowed on them over one another and for what they spend of their money.

END OF FIRST PART

SECOND PART ------> 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.

nope the verse is well-established. You can not divided in order to win the debate.

[truthseeker11]

Peace Belal,

Firstly, I am not in a debate, but just expressing my understanding.

Secondly, the positions of the verse dividers/markers/stops are completely man made. Actually they are not "verses" but "ayaat"/signs. The ayaat/signs have to be understood by their context and grammar and cross reference (tasreef) and using logic and reason (aqal), and not by using completely fabricated man made positions of dividers/markers/stops.

Please see the following thread where even Layth agrees with the position of the verse markers being arbitrary

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9567.0

No further comments on this issue from me (remember, I am not debating anything).

[belH]

Salam truthseeker,

Well done. bravo

Salam,
Arnab

Peace Arnab

Verse 2-222 speaks about Nessa Menstruation
(&#65279

2-231, 232 speaks about divorcig the Nessa

.

3-42 speaks about Mariam as being blessed by Allah over all the Nessa

(&#65279

How about this one 4-32

(&#65279

Please note how the verb Ektasbo constructed with Rejal and with Nessa. can you see that the verb with Rejal is a Male Verb and with Nessa is a Female Verb.

Arnab, I can go on in posting clear Verses to prove my point; but I see that even if what I posted were the only verses in Quran regarding our dispute, the dispute is clearly solved.

Peace

[Bahman]

Peace and God bless you )
146 digits
6370305017030101003062540120505150108010056568010117001505406100200161
700170020200400200220801013010020011506845630617030101422005405080620011746
4 trails )
Mutiple of 19
Peace

In designing of above verse text 19 letters has been used in frequency of 57 ( 3x19) ( 57Q) .
These 19 letters are
11 initial letters of total of 14 has been used 9 of these initials are same as 9 in Bsm ?. Verse

http//submission.org/suras/sura17.html
Quran The ONLY Source

We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using the Quran alone, they run away in aversion.

We are fully aware of what they hear, when they listen to you, and when they conspire secretly - the disbelievers say, "You are following a crazy man."

Note how they describe you, and how this causes them to stray off the path.

They said, "After we turn into bones and fragments, we get resurrected anew?!"

---

*1746 The Arabic word "alone" refers to God in 770, 3945, 4012 & 84, and 604. If you add these numbers, you get 361, 19x19. But if you include 1746, which refers to the Quran, the product is not a multiple of 19. "Alone," therefore refers to the Quran in 1746 (Appendix 18.).
1576 91625 Quran
All You Need For Salvation

The words of the Quran speak in 1964, saying,
"We come down in accordance with the commandments of your Lord. To Him belongs the past, present, and the future. Your Lord never forgets."
God did not forget, for example, to tell us how to sleep (18109, 3127).
Yet, the fabricators of such false doctrine as Hadith & Sunna have come up with
religious teachings dictating to their followers how to sleep, and
even how to cut your nails.
The Sacred Mosque in Mecca and the illegal "Sacred Mosque" of Medina, hire some individuals to seek out the exhausted visitors and beat them with a stick if they fall asleep on the wrong side!

The Quran proclaims that the Quran is complete, perfect, and fully detailed
(619, 38, 114, 115; 5045), and that religious regulations
not specifically instituted in the Quran constitute a religion other
than Islam, i.e., Submisssion (4221, 1746).
The true believers uphold the Quran, the whole Quran, and nothing but the Quran. This principle is confirmed by the Quran's mathematical code. Verse 46 of
Sura 17 proclaims that we shall uphold the Quran ALONE.
The word "ALONE" occurs in the Quran 6 times
770, 1746, 3945, 40 12 & 84, and 604.
All these occurrences refer to God, except 1746.
When we add the numbers of suras and verses which refer to
"GOD ALONE,"
we get 361, 19x19. This proves that 1746 refers to "the Quran ALONE."

http//y19.net/appind.htm

[siki]

I have been asking this question repeatedly, but no one has answered.

How does Quran address a group containing only women?

If we have an alternate word, then Nissa could contain males as well , but if we do not have, then Nissa is pure women.

siki

[Bahman]

Where in Quran it says " Quran Alone? I know it says " God Alone"for sure.

Peace sister
Brother Ahmed has responded and mine can mot be better than him .
And more evidence has been posted for verification of right translation for those that their heart is not beating with other sources out of Quran.

I think it's not wrong to also read The Bible because to fully understand Quran begin to read the Bible and then the Quran.

I do not agree sister. Quran is complete and detailed, It does not need any support from other sources older or newer.

I don't know about your message to her, but what i have seen is that everything she says is quotes from either the Bible or the Quran and that is good.

That confuses the people. If bibles is good then why Quran was resealed.

She not use her own words to try to create new hadiths or something

I am not against using verses that is repeated in Quran as to confirm those verses in older scriptures are. Actually sometime I do such search

I go FIRST to Quran . That is my main source then do search if I can find something in Bibles ( 274 bibles)

The reason for such search is witness how Quran is screening older ones and at the end we have same thing in our hand Quran Alone
Peace.

[Bahman]

Peace,

Sorry this is the first part of her replies to me!

Sis Becca hello Maria,
nice to meet you.
i was raised Christian. my Grandfather was a Preacher. when i was in my early 20's i become one of Jehovah's Witnesses...for 13 years. then i left and wasn't any religion for about 7 years...
WhereIsTruth (50 minutes ago) Show Hide Marked as spam Reply ...in January of 07 i discovered the Quran.
i briefly converted to Islam but discovered they follow these books called Hadiths...which were a contradiction to the Quran. it was then that i realized i was a Believer and i have been doing this preaching work, delivering the dual-Message of the Bible and Quran, ever since.
peace upon you
WhereIsTruth (48 minutes ago) Show Hide Marked as spam Reply p.s.
i only speak English
Maria

Peace sister .
You may ask her to start a new topic here that truth seekers freely can ask their questions. Peace.

[the_seeker]

Peace Br,

Where in Quran it says " Quran Alone? I know it says " God Alone" for sure.
I think it's not wrong to also read The Bible because to fully understand Quran begin to read the Bible and then the Quran. I don't know about your message to her, but what i have seen is that everything she says is quotes from either the Bible or the Quran and that is good. She not use her own words to try to create new hadiths or something.

Maria

peace all

just thinking.

since the quran confirms what is in the torah, injeel & psalms would it be just perfect to just quote from the quran alone? whatever you impart from the quran, we are certain that these are also in the previous scriptures.

if we quote from the previous scriptures and after that we determine if they are not in contradiction with the quran, wouldn't it be like admitting that we can quote from the hadiths as long as they are in line with the quran?

I believe in the previous scriptures in obedience to God. I sometimes quote from them. BUT if the quran confirms what are in them, why not just focus on the quran in imparting God's message to humanity?

just my two cents...

peace jedi

O0 ramon O0

[Ahmad_Bilal]

Peace Truthseeker11,

It can only be Lord alone in 1746 and not quran alone, according to Arabic grammar and linguistics. The translation quoted by Ahmad is incorrect. The correct translation is

1746 And we place shields over their hearts, that they should not understand it, and a deafness in their ears. And if you mention your Lord alone in the Qur?an, they run away turning their backs in aversion.

The Arabic word is "wahdahu" which can only refer to "rabbaka" according to Arabic grammar, and cannot refer to "alquran"; it does not matter where the position of "wahdahu" is. If it was "wahdihi", then it would be referring to alquran.

This is incorrect. Here's what the verse says

WajaAAalna AAala quloobihim akinnatan an yafqahoohu wafee athanihim waqran wa-itha thakarta rabbaka fee alqur-ani wahdahu wallaw AAala adbarihim nufooran

If the word "alone/only" was referring to the Lord Himself, then it would come after "rabbaka", not "alquran". Therefore, the literal translation would say

And We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using THE QURAN ALONE (alqurani wahdahu), they run away in aversion.

The translation you used is grossly incorrect. There's nowhere in that verse that says "Lord alone". The position of the word "wahdahu" determines what the subject is speaking about. For example

Qaloo aji/tana linaAAbuda Allaha wahdahu wanathara ma kana yaAAbudu abaona fa/tina bima taAAiduna in kunta mina alssadiqeena (770)

This is saying "GOD ALONE", and this makes it evident that 1746 was not talking about GOD Himself, it was talking about the QURAN ALONE...

Peace,

Ahmad

[WayFinder]

Peace Truthseeker11,

This is incorrect. Here's what the verse says

WajaAAalna AAala quloobihim akinnatan an yafqahoohu wafee athanihim waqran wa-itha thakarta rabbaka fee alqur-ani wahdahu wallaw AAala adbarihim nufooran

If the word "alone/only" was referring to the Lord Himself, then it would come after "rabbaka", not "alquran". Therefore, the literal translation would say

And We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using THE QURAN ALONE (alqurani wahdahu), they run away in aversion.

The translation you used is grossly incorrect. There's nowhere in that verse that says "Lord alone". The position of the word "wahdahu" determines what the subject is speaking about. For example

Qaloo aji/tana linaAAbuda Allaha wahdahu wanathara ma kana yaAAbudu abaona fa/tina bima taAAiduna in kunta mina alssadiqeena (770)

This is saying "GOD ALONE", and this makes it evident that 1746 was not talking about GOD Himself, it was talking about the QURAN ALONE...

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace brother Bilal

Arabic grammar is something very precise and it does not give much room for doubting which word is attached to which one...

You are arguing about the position of the word, whether it should have been right after RABBAKA if it was attached to RABBAKA... And since it is after FIL QURAANI, therefore you are advocating it must be attached to AL QURAN... This is wrong...

One of the main characteristics of arabic words is their case and this case is versy important...

RABBAKA is mansoob... (it is not rabbika/rabbouka) ... Therefore, any SWIFFAT/Adjective attached to RABBAKA should be mansoob also....

AL QURAANI is majroor... it ends with kasra(i)... it is not Quraana/Quraanou ... it is majroor because it comes after the preposition IN/Fii ... Therefore, any adjective attached to Quraan should be majroor also...

This is the basic grammar rule of SWIFA/MAWSOOF... which implies that the SWIFA(adj.) will always follow the case of the MAWSOOF... if follow the case in gender as well as plurality....

Now the famous word that is causing trouble here is WAHDAHOU...

WAHDAHOU is mansoob also.... hence, it CANNOT be attached to AL QURAANI because AL QURAANI is majroor in this phrase.... Whereas, it will attach with RABBAKA because RABBAKA is mansoob also....

So grammar-wise, ALONE is for GOD ALONE and not QURAN ALONE....

However, we do not need this verse to prove that we need to follow the QURAN alone brothers and sisters, there are so many verses in the QURAN which make us know that the only REVELATION that the messenger received is AL QURAN.... is not that enough?

Would like to get your replies...

Regards

[Bahman]

AL QURAANI is majroor... it ends with kasra(i)... it is not Quraana/Quraanou ...

Peace ;
how about

Peace

how you write
whdihi
same using Kesra or adding Yah
Peace.

[Ahmad_Bilal]

Peace WayFinder,

You are arguing about the position of the word, whether it should have been right after RABBAKA if it was attached to RABBAKA... And since it is after FIL QURAANI, therefore you are advocating it must be attached to AL QURAN... This is wrong...

One of the main characteristics of arabic words is their case and this case is versy important...

RABBAKA is mansoob... (it is not rabbika/rabbouka) ... Therefore, any SWIFFAT/Adjective attached to RABBAKA should be mansoob also....

AL QURAANI is majroor... it ends with kasra(i)... it is not Quraana/Quraanou ... it is majroor because it comes after the preposition IN/Fii ... Therefore, any adjective attached to Quraan should be majroor also...

This is the basic grammar rule of SWIFA/MAWSOOF... which implies that the SWIFA(adj.) will always follow the case of the MAWSOOF... if follow the case in gender as well as plurality....

This is incorrect, especially in this instance. There are plenty of scriptures that use the words "GOD ALONE", and in all of them, the word "wahdahu" is used directly after the subject ("allah&quot. In this case, the word "wahdahu" is used after the subject of "al-quran". This is the clearest way to interpret the meaning of the statement. It would be grammatically correct to say "rabbaka wahdahu", so why wasn't this used instead of "alqurani wahdahu"?

WAHDAHOU is mansoob also.... hence, it CANNOT be attached to AL QURAANI because AL QURAANI is majroor in this phrase.... Whereas, it will attach with RABBAKA because RABBAKA is mansoob also....

So grammar-wise, ALONE is for GOD ALONE and not QURAN ALONE....

This is wrong as well, and I already showed you from 770 what "GOD ALONE" looks like. If the verse was stating "the god alone", it would say "allaha wahdahu", not "alqurani wahdahu". If you wanted to convey the message of "LORD ALONE IN THE QURAN", it would say "rabbaka wahdahu fee alquran", not the other way around. The positioning of certain words can make a huge difference in the message being conveyed - if the words are rearranged, the sentence says something completely different.

However, we do not need this verse to prove that we need to follow the QURAN alone brothers and sisters, there are so many verses in the QURAN which make us know that the only REVELATION that the messenger received is AL QURAN.... is not that enough?

We're instructed to believe in all the messengers and the scriptures, not just Mohammed's revelation. However, you are correct in the Quran proclaiming it's singularity in religious doctrine when it comes to submitters, especially when GOD said it is 'complete, perfect, and fully detailed' (619, 38, 114, 115; 5045). It confirms the previous scriptures, and it also supercedes them, becoming the only source of religious guidance for us that we need...

Peace,

Ahmad

[belH]

WAHDAHOU is mansoob also.... hence, it CANNOT be attached to AL QURAANI because AL QURAANI is majroor in this phrase.... Whereas, it will attach with RABBAKA because RABBAKA is mansoob also....

So grammar-wise, ALONE is for GOD ALONE and not QURAN ALONE....

Peace all
I agree with Wayfinder grammer analysis.
Here is one of the verses that confirms his analysis

(&#65279
When Allah is mentioned alone, the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter are filled with disgust and horror; but when other than He are mentioned, behold, they are filled with joy! (39-45)

However, we do not need this verse to prove that we need to follow the QURAN alone brothers and sisters, there are so many verses in the QURAN which make us know that the only REVELATION that the messenger received is AL QURAN.... is not that enough?

You are right, Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) recieved one book--The Quran. But also, the prophet was ordered, as well the believers, to say

(&#65279 (&#65279

Say "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma`il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in what was given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets, from their Lord; we make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we submitt(84) If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah) never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost. (3-85)

Peace

[Ahmad_Bilal]

Peace Belalhammad,

I agree with Wayfinder grammer analysis.
Here is one of the verses that confirms his analysis

(&#65279
When Allah is mentioned alone, the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter are filled with disgust and horror; but when other than He are mentioned, behold, they are filled with joy! (39-45)

That is another case of word-confusion. That verse (3945) clearly says "allahu wahdahu", or "GOD ALONE", and if anything, it proves my point even moreso. The words "alqurani wahdahu" (1746) translate to "the quran alone"...

Peace,

Ahmad

[belH]

Peace Belalhammad,

That is another case of word-confusion. That verse (3945) clearly says "allahu wahdahu", or "GOD ALONE", and if anything, it proves my point even moreso. The words "alqurani wahdahu" (1746) translate to "the quran alone"...

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace Ahmad
The good news is both meanings are confirmed by Quran; thus, there is no dispute
May God Bless you All. handshake