"Elaziz" or "Al-Azeez"?
-
The scripture is called a "kitaabu azeez" (mighty or powerful book). This is using the word "azeez" as an adjective describing something else, which comes from God. And I already showed you the clear difference between citing something as "azeez" and as "al-azeez"... The power of the scripture still comes from God, which is why a book that is not inspired by Allah will not be called "azeez". All power comes from God...
How about replacing "azeez" with "raheem" and "alazeez" with "alraheem"?
-
How about replacing "azeez" with "raheem" and "alazeez" with "alraheem"?
It doesn't matter. Saying "azeez" and "raheem" are not the same as saying "alazeez" and "alraheem", at least not in my view. Do you think these are the same?
-
I agree with you. So a human can be "raheem", can't they?
Sure, I think a human can be "raheem". However, the Qur'an sets the precedent for these terms. In today's modern Arabic, the word "raheem" can apply to anyone who's nice, kind, and compassionate; but in the scriptures, it doesn't refer to anyone except God... I believe the context of the Qur'an should be measured through the Qur'an, and since God is the only one called "raheem" in the scriptures, He is the only one to whom this attribute applies IN THE SCRIPTURES, not in everyday life... In everyday life, anyone can be called "azeez", but this is not the case in the scriptures... Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my interpretation of Qur'anic terms. If God is called "alrahman alraheem", BOTH of these terms apply to God, whether they're used together or individually...
-
But we have just agreed that raheem is not alraheem?
Correct, raheem is not alraheem...
-
If God is called "alrahman alraheem", BOTH of these terms apply to God, whether they're used together or individually...
Who has said that "Ar Rehman" is a 'term'? Ar Rehman is the personal name of Allah, NOT attribute even. Only Ar Rehman is exclusively used for referring to Allah. And there is ONE attribute which cannot be used for anyone other than Allah and that is , used only once in the Quran.
And another fact exclusive to Allah is
NONE else has that distinction.
And yet another distinction exclusive to Allah is that He is NOT and everything else that exists is either or from . -
The prophet was described as "raheem" in 9128, not "ar-raheem"
This is true. That passage clearly describes Muhammad as "raheem", not "alraheem"... However, we must also look at the context of that passage, and we have to compare it's reference to the rest of the scripture. Nowhere throughout the entire Qur'an does it give any examples of Muhammad showing mercy to anyone; it gives plenty of instances where GOD shows mercy to humans, though. Also, none of the other prophets or messengers were ever called "raheem" in the scriptures, neither in the Qur'an or the Torah. The Hebrews said that humans should try to imitate GOD's mercy, but in essence, all mercy comes from GOD... So, not only is the prophet not "alraheem", he is also not "raheem". This is why 9128 is rejected by some, viewed as fabricated, along with 9129...
-
This is true. That passage clearly describes Muhammad as "raheem", not "alraheem"... However, we must also look at the context of that passage, and we have to compare it's reference to the rest of the scripture. Nowhere throughout the entire Qur'an does it give any examples of Muhammad showing mercy to anyone;
I see ypou changed your argument. But still, how about
3159 And by mercy from God you were kind to them and if you were cruel and hard-hearted they would have diserted you, so forgive them and and ask God to forsee their sins ...
Plus
4829
Muhammad the messenger of God and those with him are hard on the "criminals/kuffar" (ruhamaa' (plural of raheem)) kind with each other..
-
I see ypou changed your argument. But still, how about
3159 And by mercy from God you were kind to them and if you were cruel and hard-hearted they would have diserted you, so forgive them and and ask God to forsee their sins ...
Plus
4829
Muhammad the messenger of God and those with him are hard on the "criminals/kuffar" (ruhamaa' (plural of raheem)) kind with each other..
I already explained these passages. The words "rahma" and "ruhamaa" can refer to mercy, but they primarily refer to kindness and compassion. Muhammad, as well as all the other believers, are capable of being kind and friendly to others, but they can't bestow mercy on others, since this implies forgiveness and grace. This is why the believers are never called "rahimeen"/merciful ones; only God can bestow mercy on people, since He is the only one with power and control over them...
-
Peace Mazhar,
I already explained this concept as well... The scriptures point out that all power is from God, and there is no power independent of God. Since having "mercy" someone entails having power over them, then all mercy is also from God. Therefore, this passage is not literal. It's like saying God is "most powerful of the powerful". It's allegorical, since nobody is merciful or powerful except God. This is why the Basmallah ("bism allah alrahman alraheem" is only applicable in reference to God, since He alone possesses all authority.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
The question is, SHOULD al-malik be held as a title or attribute by men? If so, why not al-azeez?
The Arabic title "al-malik" simply means the king or ruler. Since there were other nations that had leaders called kings, this is an actual title that can be applied to men.
Of course it can be applied to men, just as al-azeez can be applied to men. Quran uses both the words al-malik and al-azeez for men. But does it use these words for God anywhere? It says al-malikul haqq and al-azeezur raheem etc. But why does it no say "al-malik" only, or "al-azeez" only, why not even once?
Don?t make the mistake of translating before understanding the logic. Formulate first, see if the logic is in line with the rest of the Quran, put in the values/meanings later. Or else your understanding will be prejudiced.
However, the attribute "al-azeez" means the powerful or the mighty, and this is an attribute that only God possesses.
But the Quran uses it for a human. Why would it use it for a human if it was a divine attribute?The titles "al-azeez" and "al-malik" are completely different...
Of course, all attributes are different. But both of these are human attributes. Why else are they not used on their own for God anywhere in the Quran?
But bro, we have no Quranic evidence for that.
This is FALSE. The Qur'an makes it clear that all power and might belong to God (2165; 671; 1065; 515. Since there is no power independent of God, then nobody else is fitting for the title "al-azeez", or the powerful.
But don?t you see, that the quran also says that all mulk belongs to God, that there is no mulk independent of God either? But despite of that, the quran still uses the term al-malik for humans. Using the same logic, why can?t it also use the term al-azeez for humans?