"Badr" in this thread I'd like to ask you some questions that come to my mind!
-
Peace "Badr",
From what I know, A Rassool is the one who bring a new law and the messenger is a preacher that uses the previous law. In the same time evry rasool is a nabi but the opposite aint correct. So normally theres no need for 2 Rasools (or maybe in two opposites parts of the world) I really don't know but as the prophet said that there were 124000 nabi and 313 rasool, it's possible.
What I know for sure is the possibility of 2 nabi or a nabi and a rasool in the same time, examples are several Musa and Harun, Yaqub and his son Yusuf, Dawood and his son Suleiman, Ibraheem and Lut and Ismail and Ishaq...
JK- When we use the English term messenger we mean "rassool" and for "nabi" we'll use Prophet, ok? NOW would it surprise you if, according to the definitions of rasool and nabi you presented, there were two messengers in EXACTLY THE SAME TIME AND LOCATION AS WELL preaching to the SAME PEOPLE like for example Isaac and Ismail or David and Somlmon or Moses and Aron? GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- When we use the English term messenger we mean "rassool" and for "nabi" we'll use Prophet, ok? NOW would it surprise you if, according to the definitions of rasool and nabi you presented, there were two messengers in EXACTLY THE SAME TIME AND LOCATION AS WELL preaching to the SAME PEOPLE like for example Isaac and Ismail or David and Somlmon or Moses and Aron? GOD Bless!
No it wouldnt surprise me (I already quoted the same prophets in my post).
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- No i meant TWO MESSENGERS(RASOOL) in the same place at the same time. Would that surprise you? GOD Bless!
I perfectly understood the question, it wouldnt surprise me. Why would it be ? if I'm not surprised that God made a person able to revive the dead I wouldnt be surprised if He choose to send 2 rasools in the same time.
-
Peace "Badr",
I perfectly understood the question, it wouldnt surprise me. Why would it be ? if I'm not surprised that God made a person able to revive the dead I wouldnt be surprised if He choose to send 2 rasools in the same time.
JK- Ok then it's fine but do ask some of the "scholars" in your surrounding and ask them whether such is possible i.e. two rasool at the same time because I've heard from a scholar that it is not because we can't have two shariats at the same time. NOW for my next question
- You said above every Rasool is a Nabi but not every Nabi is a Rasool, thus by definition making Nabi the common term and Rasool the specific. NOW by that very definition, if the Quran were making a statement(s) like "some nabis/rasools We have mentioned whilst others We have not mentioned", provided that if in ALL CASES of such a statement occurring, ONLY ONE of the two terms is used consistently, WHICH term should logically be found in there, NABI or RASOOL, and why?
GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- Ok then it's fine but do ask some of the "scholars" in your surrounding and ask them whether such is possible i.e. two rasool at the same time because I've heard from a scholar that it is not because we can't have two shariats at the same time. NOW for my next question
- You said above every Rasool is a Nabi but not every Nabi is a Rasool, thus by definition making Nabi the common term and Rasool the specific. NOW by that very definition, if the Quran were making a statement(s) like "some nabis/rasools We have mentioned whilst others We have not mentioned", provided that if in ALL CASES of such a statement occurring, ONLY ONE of the two terms is used consistently, WHICH term should logically be found in there, NABI or RASOOL, and why?
GOD Bless!
Both can apply.
-
Peace "Badr",
Both can apply.
JK- How is is logical if all such statements exlcusively used say the specific term RASOOL? Wouldn't it make more sense to use NABI going by you're definiton? Lemme give you a non rellgious example. We know that Europeans and Germans are related where every German is a European whilst not every European is a German. Someone writing a book wants to make a statement that not all Westeners in Europe are mentioned in his book. Should he now say "Some Germans I've mentioned whilst others I've not" OR should he say "some Europeans I've mentioned whilst others I've not?
GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- How is is logical if all such statements exlcusively used say the specific term RASOOL? Wouldn't it make more sense to use NABI going by you're definiton? Lemme give you a non rellgious example. We know that Europeans and Germans are related where every German is a European whilst not every European is a German. Someone writing a book wants to make a statement that not all Westeners in Europe are mentioned in his book. Should he now say "Some Germans I've mentioned whilst others I've not" OR should he say "some Europeans I've mentioned whilst others I've not?
GOD Bless!
You said it yourself "majority doesn't make authority". If God wants He can says "some rasool we mentionned while other we didnt" wich is true because he neither mentionned all anbiya nor all rasools in the Quran.
-
Peace "Badr"
You said it yourself "majority doesn't make authority". If God wants He can says "some rasool we mentionned while other we didnt" wich is true because he neither mentionned all anbiya nor all rasools in the Quran.
JK- This has nothing to do with majority but about classification of the inspired men of God in this case. If God said "some rasool..." only, then that would lead to confusion, provided your definition of nabi and rasool, because then it could imply that all nabiyeen who're not mursaleen are mentioned in the Quran. Infact think about why Allah mentions this verse at all? It's because most likely otherwise people would think the Quran as the last and final revelation mentioned all prophets and messengers there ever were. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
I'll post my third question here now
- We'd both agree that attributes of Allah NOT PRECEDED by "al" can be used for humans and other beings as well. Can Allah 's attributes which are mentioned in the Quran, prefixed with "Al" also be used for humans or any other beings besides Allah?
GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
I'll post my third question here now
- We'd both agree that attributes of Allah NOT PRECEDED by "al" can be used for humans and other beings as well. Can Allah 's attributes which are mentioned in the Quran, prefixed with "Al" also be used for humans or any other beings besides Allah?
GOD Bless!
Yes, Al Hakeem, the wise for the Quran and for Luqman.
Al Malik has also been said for the king in the surat of Yusuf.
Also in the same surat Al Aziz (the wife of Al Aziz)
The difference is in the sense of god these attributes become the Most ..... but in arabic it's the same.
-
Peace "Badr"
Yes, Al Hakeem, the wise for the Quran and for Luqman.
Al Malik has also been said for the king in the surat of Yusuf.
Also in the same surat Al Aziz (the wife of Al Aziz)
The difference is in the sense of god these attributes become the Most ..... but in arabic it's the same.
JK- So then why do I hear from so many sunnis that "no, no with "al" it implies "the most" and hence this can never happen" and some even went to the extent calling it shirk? So you admit there is no "most" in arabic. Hence there is no need to trick people into believing the "al" makes it into something special there which the ones who don't know Arabic will think. NEXT question
- You will find in the Quran special adjective like phrases like "malakan rasoolan(angel messenger)", "siddiqan nabiyan(saint prophet)" and "basharan rassolan(human messenger)" ALWAYS in that same order. If you'd agree with me that not every angel is a messenger, not every saint is a prophet, not every human is a messenger and and also you said earlier that not every Nabi is a Rasool THEN in order for consistency, if Allah used the terms nabi and rasool in the same conjoined adjective form as the three aforementioned terms, in what order should we logically find them?
GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr"
JK- So then why do I hear from so many sunnis that "no, no with "al" it implies "the most" and hence this can never happen" and some even went to the extent calling it shirk? So you admit there is no "most" in arabic. Hence there is no need to trick people into believing the "al" makes it into something special there which the ones who don't know Arabic will think. NEXT question
- You will find in the Quran special adjective like phrases like "malakan rasoolan(angel messenger)", "siddiqan nabiyan(saint prophet)" and "basharan rassolan(human messenger)" ALWAYS in that same order. If you'd agree with me that not every angel is a messenger, not every saint is a prophet, not every human is a messenger and and also you said earlier that not every Nabi is a Rasool THEN in order for consistency, if Allah used the terms nabi and rasool in the same conjoined adjective form as the three aforementioned terms, in what order should we logically find them?
GOD Bless!
Nabiyan rasulan of course.
What do I win in the end of the test ? ;D
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- Correct. "UNFORTUNATELY" we NEVER find "nabiyan rasoolan" in the Quran but the OPPOSITE "rasoolan nabiyan". What do you say now? GOD Bless!
I say that you are incredibly ahead of your time -\ what am I supposed to understand ? God says what He want and He must be right.
It reminds me of surat Al Feel (the elephant) ; all the verses end with "eel" except the last one, it end with "ool" even that "eel" is a very easy rhyme He Easily could have put a word with "eel" but no ! Yall goin to be taken by surprise ;D
-
Peace "Badr",
I say that you are incredibly ahead of your time -\ what am I supposed to understand ? God says what He want and He must be right.
It reminds me of surat Al Feel (the elephant) ; all the verses end with "eel" except the last one, it end with "ool" even that "eel" is a very easy rhyme He Easily could have put a word with "eel" but no ! Yall goin to be taken by surprise ;D
JK- Thuis doesn't show the Quran is wrong. Quote the contrary. What it shows is that YOUR DEFINITION OF RASOOL AND NABI AND THAT IF MOST "scholars" IS WRONG. If you combine this fact with the previous fact I pointed out in a question it leaves no doubt that NOT EVERY RASOOL IS A NABI. This perfectly fits with the usage of the Quranic terms. On top of that we have a verse from the Quran stating in PRESENT tense that TO every community IS a messenger
1047 And for every nation there IS a messenger(wa liKULLI UMMATIN RASOOL).
Even if one argues that there is the Ummah of Muhammad, we yet have many other Ummahs in the world. Infact communties continue to arise and fall even now and will probably continue to do so. Thus logically the verse must apply to them too.
That's how when I was a sunni saw that the basic claims of the majority of "scholars" breaks down like a house of cards once I studied the Quran intensively. -
Peace "Badr",
JK- Thuis doesn't show the Quran is wrong. Quote the contrary. What it shows is that YOUR DEFINITION OF RASOOL AND NABI AND THAT IF MOST "scholars" IS WRONG. If you combine this fact with the previous fact I pointed out in a question it leaves no doubt that NOT EVERY RASOOL IS A NABI. This perfectly fits with the usage of the Quranic terms. On top of that we have a verse from the Quran stating in PRESENT tense that TO every community IS a messenger
1047 And for every nation there IS a messenger(wa liKULLI UMMATIN RASOOL).
Even if one argues that there is the Ummah of Muhammad, we yet have many other Ummahs in the world. Infact communties continue to arise and fall even now and will probably continue to do so. Thus logically the verse must apply to them too.
That's how when I was a sunni saw that the basic claims of the majority of "scholars" breaks down like a house of cards once I studied the Quran intensively.Wow o you're takin in too far brother ! do you seriously think scholars didnt noted 1951 and 1954 ?
-
Peace "Badr",
Wow you're takin in too far brother ! do you seriously think scholars didnt noted 1951 and 1954 ?
JK- They have looked at them IN ISOLATION, NOT connecting the dots with the other terms I mentioned which are not all in one place. You have to connect the dots to get the big picture. The Quran is built not to mention everything in one place. It leaves off at one and then continues adding detail of the same topic at another location. I beleive only the true seekers would be able to decipher this who don't waste their time on external sources trying to understand the Quran like hadith. NEXT question
- Is muhammad the only one who exclusively receives "sallu/salawaat" from Allah and the angels?
GOD Bless!