Funny description of us - the hadith rejectors! :)
-
Peace Raaajah,
Agree with the part in red; but Allah not only labels us but tells us who should be labeled as a Muslim
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/003.%20Aale%20Imran/3.67p.gif
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/003.%20Aale%20Imran/3.67q.gif
Iebra'heim never had been in the community of Jews nor the Christians, but on the contrary he was perpetually in the state of a Muslim;and he was never ever amongst the idol-worshipers who assign after naming the sculpted idols as partner iela'aha with Allah.
So these are the ones for whom the label Muslim is for.You say you agree but you don't apply what you just agreed to. So if someone puts on his ID card the label "Muslim" does he or she fullfil the truth of 367? Only meaningless labels are left untranslated. If something has a meaning and the meaning conveys truth in the context then it should be translated.
I see you often use the word God, which word of Quran have you translated as God, curious to know. Thanks and Salaam.
It is not God. It is the (definite) god. The word "allah" is in fact an abbreviation of the word "al-ilah", which means "the god".
Peace,
Ayman
-
The word "allah" is in fact an abbreviation of the word "al-ilah", which means "the god".
Peace,
AymanWhat I understand from your above quote is you are saying that Muslims barrow the name of the chief deity of pre-islamic Makkah called al-ilah.
If this is it I strongly disagree. It does not mean "a god", but rather "the Only God", the Supreme Creator of the universe.
I quote the following
"Edward William Lane's Lexicon"
" {Alllah}, accord. to the most correct of the opinions respecting it, which are twenty in number, (K,) or more than thirty, (MF) is a proper name, (Msb,K,) applied to the Being who exists necessarily, by Himself, comprising all the attributes of perfection; (TA a proper name denoting the true god, comprising all the excellent divine names; a unity comprising all the essences of existing things; (Ibn-El-Arabee, TA the {AL} being inseparable from it; (Msb not derived....... {Image of complete entry http//img426.imageshack.us/img426/4340/ewlanelexiconnn0.jpg Entry starts from right to left}
In Arabic there are many words that begin with ?al? such as ?alyasa? where ?al? is not a definite article. ?alyasa? is the arabicized form of the Hebrew name ?Elisha?
Laa ilaaha illaa alllah ?There is no God except Alllah?
Maa min ilaahin illaa alllah ?there is not a single deity(or other God) except Alllah?
If the name meant ?the god? it would not have been used in such a statement, because ?laa ilaaha illaa al ilaah ~ there is no God except the god?, and ? maa min ilahin illaa al ilaah ~ there is not a single deity(or God) except the god? is improper Arabic, absurd, and a contradiction to it self, whereas the name Alllaah would not have been possible to be used in such a statement in the Arabic language. -
If something is a proper name then it is a meaningless label and this is why it is not translated since its meaning doesn't convey truth in the context. Aymen
A great linguistic in the making!!!! Mazhar
You mean linguist. MesMorial
Dear I delayed the response. I do make spelling mistakes, but here, No, I wrote what I wrote, somehow matching the quote. And see here another pearl of a great "linguistic" in the making.
It is not God. It is the (definite) god. The word "allah" is in fact an abbreviation of the word "al-ilah", which means "the god". Aymen
-
Peace Raaajah,
What I understand from your above quote is you are saying that Muslims barrow the name of the chief deity of pre-islamic Makkah called al-ilah.
I don't see how you could have reached this conclusion. I didn't say anything about "Muslims", "chief diety" or "Makkah". There wasn't even a town called Makkah prior to the 8th century CE so there can be no such thing as "Pre-Islamic Makkah". Where are you getting this information from?
The fact is that "allah"/"al-ilah" means the god and it was used by everyone. You can see that Pre-Islamic Christians used "al-ilah" to mean "allah" as you can see in this inscription
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/zebed.html
If this is it I strongly disagree. It does not mean "a god", but rather "the Only God", the Supreme Creator of the universe.
Please quote where I said that "allah" means "a god". I clearly said that "allah" means "the god". By definition, the god is "the only god".
I quote the following
"Edward William Lane's Lexicon"
" {Alllah}, accord. to the most correct of the opinions respecting it, which are twenty in number, (K,) or more than thirty, (MF) is a proper name, (Msb,K,) applied to the Being who exists necessarily, by Himself, comprising all the attributes of perfection; (TA a proper name denoting the true god, comprising all the excellent divine names; a unity comprising all the essences of existing things; (Ibn-El-Arabee, TA the {AL} being inseparable from it; (Msb not derived....... {Image of complete entry http//img426.imageshack.us/img426/4340/ewlanelexiconnn0.jpg Entry starts from right to left}This is 100% false. The guy who wrote this clearly doesn't know about basic Arabic and common sense. The in the word "" is merely the definite article. Like all mundane definited article when attached to any Arabic word, the letter Alif is removed when you add "to"/"". So becomes with the addition of "to"/"". Compare this to proper names where the "Al" is an inseparable part of the name such as the country named "Albania" where you would say and not . This is all very basic and clear Arabic so the fact that "allah" is simply "al-ilah" is indisputable from a linguistic, epigraphic, and logical point of views.
In Arabic there are many words that begin with ?al? such as ?alyasa? where ?al? is not a definite article. ?alyasa? is the arabicized form of the Hebrew name ?Elisha?
In this case like Albania, you would say "li-Alyasa" and not "li-lyasa" since ?Al? is an inseparable part of the name and not a definite article. This is the opposite case with "allah" where we say "li-lah" and not "li-allah". So your example actually confirms what I am saying.
Laa ilaaha illaa alllah ?There is no God except Alllah?
Maa min ilaahin illaa alllah ?there is not a single deity(or other God) except Alllah?
If the name meant ?the god? it would not have been used in such a statement, because ?laa ilaaha illaa al ilaah ~ there is no God except the god?, and ? maa min ilahin illaa al ilaah ~ there is not a single deity(or God) except the god? is improper Arabic, absurd, and a contradiction to it self, whereas the name Alllaah would not have been possible to be used in such a statement in the Arabic language.Taking "allah" as a proper name is what reduces any statement to nonsense. Anyone can name anything any proper name. For example, anyone can name a stone idol "Allah" since a proper name is just a label. On the other hand, the one true god is not a label but is a universal concept describing truth, in other words a common noun.
In fact, "la illah illa allah"/"there is no god except the god" can only be meaningful if "allah"/"the god" is a common noun. It is true like saying "there is no truth except the truth". By definition "truth" cannot be half a truth nor have other "truths" contradicting it. The same applies for the concept of god. By definition, there can be no god that has other gods in competition/contradiction. So there can be no god except the definite god. I don't know if I communicated this clearly but I hope that you can see the amazing logic of this simple statement.
In fact in every occurrence of the word ?allah? in the great reading the common noun ?the god? fits perfectly. Take for example, 63 where "al-ilah" (the god) is clearly intended
- ...wa huwa allah fi al-samawati ...
- ...and he is the god in the heavens ...
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace
"The Refuters of Hadith
Quote Originally Posted by mospike
I have come across a friend who does not believe in Hadith litreature he says he only accepts Quraan. I was hoping members on this forum could assist me with relevant litreature to prove him wrongAssalam U Aalaikum
Well Brother Mospike, it looks like that you have run into very interesting people... they are very few in number but are deadly...they are spread in small numbers through out the world and their fraternity operates through Bazms... I dont know if you have access to Mufti Rafi Uthmani's (Current Mufti Azam of Pakistan) good lecture on Munkareen Hadith (refuters of Hadith) but he traces the roots to some Jew by the name of Goldsmith who started all this (probably in Germany)..."
From Sunni Forum http//www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?9877-Rejectors-of-Hadith
Oooo we sound fascinating yet deadly jedi cool ;D
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Salam and Peace on you, Rana.
I went to the SunniForum you mentioned above, got a UserID TruthBehindIt and at the moment I am having discussion with another UserID DefendingIslam.
I wanted to share my discussion with DefendingIslam on the above mentioned SunniForum. Below is the link
http//www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?68950-best-book-Answering-Quranists&highlight=hadithThe Quotes below are from DefendingIslam on the----- SunniForum.Com
Answered by TruthBehindItMay Allah guide all of us to The Right Path.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@This is circular reasoning if we follow your methodology. This is so because in order to determine what the Quran says to begin with one has to use sources other than the Quran in order to know what the numerous linguistic symbols and their combination represent, something which is forbidden in the Quranist methodology for acquiring knowledge. This is why the attack should first be done on the methodology of the Quranists rather than their million and one objections, objections which vary from person to person.
Salam and Peace on you!
No, you don't need an outside source to start understanding Allah's Quran.
Making things complex, is a try to evade the easy-to-understand Quran.
In your heart, you know it better.
We all know in our hearts who we are."But, man will be a witness against himself. Even if he offers his excuses." (Al-Qiyamah-14,15)
There are a number of matters under discussion in here.
First, how do the Quranists know this is the exact translation of the Verse, and that there is no mistranslation or manipulation of this Verse? In this Verse alone, there are a number of key Arabic words, each of which may have different meanings, and the Quran-only approach does not know which of the meanings should be adopted in this case. If we were to open an Arabic-English dictionary to find out what the Arabic words mean, this would be a breach of the Quranists method for finding out the truth. But yet, the Quranist blissfully takes from whatever translation they find either online or in the libraries. For a people who claim to follow nothing other than the text of the Quran, such a careless method for finding out what the Quran says is quite shocking and deplorable, since it is not even a method, but mere playing with the religion in whatever manner it is seen as fit for them.
Allah's Quran is The Easiest Book on the face of the earth. Don't make Al-Quran a difficult Book and don't make people run away from The Truth.
Secondly, it is a gross misinterpretation to say that this Verse speaks of the Quran being the only Truth "and nothing after It". This is not what the Verse says but only a sloppy interpretation added to the Quranic Verse. The Verse mentions only that the Quran is truth, but does not negate knowledge other than the Quran as being true.
Additionally, we would have a more serious problem, since now the Quranist is saying that any and all information outside of the Quran is not true at all. And this includes information that can be gained by the senses and from information given to us by people, such as the existence of the forum we are discussing in, and the existence of countries such as Canada, Australia, etc.
If the Quranist objects, we answer by saying that it is their view that there is the Quranic truth "and nothing after It", so either they have to recant this view or continue propagating their view that the Quran mentions that all sensory data and information gained by reporting is absolutely false.
If anything other than Al-Quran would have been The Truth along with Al-Quran, Allah would have mentioned that for The Guidance of His slaves.
This is an appeal to emotion, and a very bad one at that. The Muslims indeed trust in the mass transmitted non-Quranic narrations about the Prophet (Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam), and we can know much more by this means. But as was mentioned before, for the Quranist, they cannot even know which Muhammad from among the millions of Muhammads that have been alive in the world the Quran is referring to, since for them there is no truth after the Quranic text.
Yes, the ummah believe in mass narrations, that is the only reason of their downfall and humiliation at the hand of the non-muslims.
The mass narrations about the Prophet is
----the Prophet is alive and present everywhere in the universe---the Prophet knows the unseen---the Prophet answers the Salam sent by his ummah---the Prophet will do Shafa'ut for his ummah---All these are blatant lies about the Prophet given by the mass narrations.
Yes, that person is a disbeliever who will be punished as such in this world and in the Hereafter. Consider that in following the Quran-only methodology, we have the possibility of having thousands of Quran-only religions each granting Prophethood to whichever Muhammad (or Ahmad if we go by other Quranic Verses) they wish to grant prophethood to, since they consider mass narrations as untrustworthy. And this is a natural consequence of the Quran-only philosophy, and there is no way for them to circumvent this manner without dropping their system.
The people who follow their Allah's Quran only, truly, they can never be with different concepts. Only the sectarians differ from each other grossly, and call each other kafir.
And according to you, those who follow Allah, they will go to hell, because they reject the mass narrations about the Prophet (given above) and Islam.
Very well----Well done!----Good daring!---Wow courage!"But, man will be a witness against himself. Even if he offers his excuses." (Al-Qiyamah-14,15)
These are not rules "made up by men", but these are obvious rules of the sound mind for reaching certain knowledge about matters.
Those sound minds----they say the Prophet is alive even after his death and present everywhere.
So, those sound minds have died and become dust in the dust.
Don't call people to the dead-ones.We trust in Allah alone, The All Mighty, The Omnipotent!
The Quran itself was revealed keeping in mind that such rules would be followed for otherwise the whole revelation would be useless. This is so, because in that case people would see the Arabic letters of the Quran and deny that such are indeed letters (or hear the recitation and deny that they were hearing anything), or see the letters coming together to make words (and words making phrases and so on), and deny that such words and phrases have been made to begin with.
What a complication!---What a confusion about The Easiest Book on the face of the earth.
No one can change Allah's Quran, It is in Allah's Protection. It is a matter of Iman and trust in Allah alone.
Indeed, those who trust in mass narrations and believe the Prophet is alive and present everywhere, indeed, Allah's Quran is useless thing for them.
And a useless thing is always deserted.-----"And the Messenger (on The Judgement Day ) will say, "O my Lord! My ummah had deserted this Quran." (Al-Furqan-30)
----and they held on to the mass narrations.And this also extends to the issue of mass narration, since the Quranic text has been transmitted orally by mean of mass transmission from one generation to the next. In the Quranist only philosophy believing in the authenticity of the Quran is impossible, since the system of mass transmission is rejected altogether, and there is nothing in the text of the Quran explicitly mentioning in detail how the text of the Quran has come from Allah to the reader in an authentic way.
One can see the big joke in this regard, as it would require for there to be an "Appendix to the Quran" mentioning how each and every person who lived and will live can be sure that the text of the Quran he read/is reading is indeed the correct text of the Quran. And this is necessary according to the methodology of the Quranist, since he cannot trust that the printing complex from which the copy of the Quran he is holding came from is indeed correctly printing the Quranic text or whether some problems have crept into his copy. As by the admission of the Quranist, getting the assurance from every single Muslim that this is indeed the correct copy is not enough since information through mass transmission is a "rule made up by mortals" according to him.
Certainly, it will be passed on generation to generation in Allah's Protection. Again, It is a matter of Iman and trust in Allah alone.
Again,-----Indeed, those who trust in mass narrations and believe the Prophet is alive and present everywhere, indeed, Allah's Quran is useless thing for them.
And a useless thing is always deserted.-----"And the Messenger (on The Judgement Day ) will say, "O my Lord! My ummah had deserted this Quran." (Al-Furqan-30)
----and they held on to the mass narrations.All in all, this discussion can only go forward if the Quranist is willing to discuss how certain knowledge is gained, for otherwise the Quranic is selectively playing with the Islamic religion in order to fulfill his own desires.
"But, man will be a witness against himself. Even if he offers his excuses." (Al-Qiyamah-14,15)
Peace on you, nice brother!
A lot of Peace!@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Next Post by TruthBehindIt in reply to DefendingIslam, which the SunniForum.Com didn't publish yet. I don't know, they will publish it or not.Please read.
Peace on you!The Quotes below are from DefendingIslam on the----- SunniForum.Com
Answered by TruthBehindIt
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@DefendingIslam
Salam and Peace on you!In fact the text of the Quran is mass-transmitted, and the status of the mass transmitted non-Quranic narrations is the same in terms of establishing the truth of matters as is the Quranic text.
Who said this?----Who said---"and the status of the mass transmitted non-Quranic narrations is the same in terms of establishing the truth of matters as is the Quranic text."-----So who said this?---This looks like a Commandment.-----Who issued this Commandment?-----Allah?-----Or-----Ghair Allah?
Okay!---I am ready to follow. But first of all give me A Revealed Proof from Allah's Quran.---What is the name of the Sura and what is the number of the Verse?-----I will only obey what Allah says.
And if you don't have any Revealed Proof from Allah, then fear Allah. Because, it is not me,-----but our Allah who is demanding A Revealed Proof from His Revelation in favour of what you have claimed.-----"Say (O Messenger) "Do you have any (Revealed) Knowledge that you can produce before us (in favour of what you claim)? You follow not except conjecture, and you do nothing except guessing." Say "Then for Allah is The Conclusive Argument (i.e. The Verses from Al-Quran)." (Al-Nisaa-148,149)
Brother, your Allah is demanding A Revealed Proof from you, in favour of what you claimed in your post ---"and the status of the mass transmitted non-Quranic narrations is the same in terms of establishing the truth of matters as is the Quranic text."-----
So look toward the sky, and put very humbly before your Allah The Revealed Proof from Allah's Quran.I have read my Allah's Safe, Exalted and Holy Quran, and I never found a Verse in which Allah said this.---"and the status of the mass transmitted non-Quranic narrations is the same in terms of establishing the truth of matters as is the Quranic text."-----
So, my Rubb never said this, I reject this conjecture.I will only follow my Rubb.
Who is your Rubb, whom you follow?-----"They have taken their ulama and spiritual leaders as rubb besides Allah." (Al-Tauba-31)
So whoever rejects the mass transmitted Ahadith is the same as the one who rejects the Quranic text, and both of them are disbelievers.
Is the above quote, an Exalted and Holy Verse from Allah's Quran?
If it is,-----then give the name of the Surah and the number of the Verse, in which Allah Declares the rejector of Sahih Al-Bukhari, a kafir.-----And if you can not produce your Proof from The Revealed Knowledge, then fear Allah.-----"Say (O Messenger) "Do you have any (Revealed) Knowledge that you can produce before us (in favour of what you claim)? You follow not except conjecture, and you do nothing except guessing." Say "Then for Allah is The Conclusive Argument (i.e. The Verses from Al-Quran)." (Al-Nisaa-148,149)
Did you read the above Exalted and Holy Verse?
So,-----What do you say now. Don't quote anything from the man-made books of ahadith, or don't quote any commandment of the religious scholars to twist The Truth. It will have zero value before Allah.I read my Allah's Safe and Holy Quran and I never found a Verse saying-----So whoever rejects the mass transmitted Ahadith is the same as the one who rejects the Quranic text, and both of them are disbelievers.-----So, I throw this on the wall.
So in this sense, the mass transmitted Ahadith are definitely the same as the Quran,
Allah's Quran!---and---man-made books of ahadith1---are equal???
On my goodness!-----
Again I am ready to put my Iman in the above quote. But give me Proof. Who said this.
If my Rubb, Who created me and gives me to eat, has said this-----"So in this sense, the mass transmitted Ahadith are definitely the same as the Quran,"-----then I will put my Iman in it.
And if the big-ones of the ummah has said this who were created and were given to eat,---then I simply reject the above quote with all Yaqeen and composure, because for sure, those big-ones (Imams, religious scholars) are not my Rubb.-----"They have taken their ulama and spiritual leaders as rubb besides Allah." (Al-Tauba-31)
Allah is my Rubb, so I simply look toward Him. I tie up all my hopes with Him. I only follow His Holy Words (unmixed).
Who is your Rubb, whose words you follow.On my site there are two article dealing with this matter
The Authority of Sunnah by Mufti Taqi Usmani (http//www.defending-islam.com/page238.html)
and
The Fallacies of Anti Hadith Arguments By Shah Shahidullah Faridi (http//www.defending-islam.com/page236.html)
Again those mortal rubbs, "Mufti Taqi Usmani" and "Shah Shahidullah Faridi "-------who were born and given to eat, and who will die and became dust into the dust. Should I take them as my rubbs? Don't call people to Shirk.
These religious scholars have done nothing for me. They have not created even a single jot of food for me. They have no right on me. They have no justification that I should follow their lectures and books.
Allah created me and gives me to eat. He gave me loving parents, loving wife and children, and gave all of us to eat. He gives us everything that we need. Alhamdolillah!
I will only follow my Rubb, Allah The All Mighty, The Most Merciful.Remember,
Whom Sujdah is offered,-------is not Rubb.
Whose Sayings are followed,-------is the Rubb.If someone follows The Sayings of his Allah (Al-Quran only),-----then he worships his Allah alone.
-----So, he takes Allah as his Rubb.
----"You alone we worship, And You alone We ask for help." (Al-Fatiha-4)And if someone follows the sayings (in the name of explanations of Al-Quran) of the mortal rubbs (religious scholars), then those mortal rubbs (religious scholars) are his rubbs. See, those mortal rubbs die one day to become dust into dust, and leave behind their slaves to find another rubb.
-----"They have taken their ulama and spiritual leaders as rubb besides Allah." (Al-Tauba-31)
They go for the explanations of Allah's Quran,---they don't go for Allah's Quran.
They trust the clergies to understand Al-Quran,-----they don't trust in their Allah to understand His Easy-to-understand Quran.
Oh!---See!---They love "the explanations of Al-Quran",-----but for sure, they don't love "Al-Quran alone"
.
As a result, they get "the explanation of Al-Quran",----and they are deprived from "Allah's Quran".
And as a result, they become reverents of their clergies, and not their Allah.
And when they are called to their Allah alone, they shout, "Imam Bukhari!"-----They love Imam Bukhari. Don't they!-----"And when Allah, the One is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter are filled with disgust. And when those (whose teachings they follow) besides Him are mentioned, behold, they rejoice. (Al-Zamur-45)
They rejoice when those Imams and big-ones are mentioned, whose explanations of Al-Quran they follow, because they change the meaning of Allah's Verses according to the desire of the mass.----For sure!
-----"Is not Allah sufficient for His slave. And they frighten you with those (whom they worship) other than Him. And whom Allah sends astray, then for him there is no guide." (Al-Zamur-36)
What a Great Verse!----Subhaan Allah!
Do those bukhari-followers not frighten the true momineen, with Imam Bukhari and his books.-----Yes, they do frighten the momineen.-----They try to frighten the truthful momineen by saying-----"So whoever rejects the mass transmitted Ahadith is the same as the one who rejects the Quranic text, and both of them are disbelievers".So whoever rejects the mass transmitted Ahadith is the same as the one who rejects the Quranic text, and both of them are disbelievers.
How the above quoted Verse fits those Bukhari-followers who frighten the momin of Allah alone.-----"And they frighten you with those (whom they worship) other than Him."-----But, they don't fear Allah for themselves.
So, very truly this Verse say
-----"They have taken their ulama and spiritual leaders as rubb besides Allah." (Al-Tauba-31)This is Allah's Decision that those religious scholars are his rubbs.---Many rubbs.
Are they not at all happy with one Rubb,-----The Rubb-ul-Alameen?And if someone doesn't accept, then let him do what he can,-----let him burn the whole world, kill all the people-----but Allah's Verses will be implemented.
-----"They have taken their ulama and spiritual leaders as rubb besides Allah." (Al-Tauba-31)
=================================================
(We come to the End)Respected brothes/sisters, I beg your pardon, if I have wasted your time.
Please forgive me. -
Taking "allah" as a proper name is what reduces any statement to nonsense. Anyone can name anything any proper name. For example, anyone can name a stone idol "Allah" since a proper name is just a label. On the other hand, the one true god is not a label but is a universal concept describing truth, in other words a common noun.
Another gem for linguists the world over.
-
aymen
I don't see how you could have reached this conclusion. I didn't say anything about "Muslims", "chief diety" or "Makkah". There wasn't even a town called Makkah prior to the 8th century CE so there can be no such thing as "Pre-Islamic Makkah". Where are you getting this information from?
Well this is highly disputable issue and has been discussed at several places in the past. This can be discussed again at some later stage.
The fact is that "allah"/"al-ilah" means the god and it was used by everyone. You can see that Pre-Islamic Christians used "al-ilah" to mean "allah" as you can see in this inscription
Well the Arab Christians still use this word, and they used it at that time, in-fact the name of Prophet's father was Abdallah he was not a Christian or Jew. There are many other examples that could be given but right now I am concerned with your following quote
It is not God. It is the (definite) god. The word "allah" is in fact an abbreviation of the word "al-ilah", which means "the god". Aymen
At how many places is this abbreviation "allah" (according to you) and the original word "al-ilah" used in Quran, if you can point out it will be easier to understand what you are trying to prove.
Salaam and Thanks.
-
It is not God. It is the (definite) god. The word "allah" is in fact an abbreviation of the word "al-ilah", which means "the god". Ayman
Before we get another "pearl", let me put both the words hereunder and given everybody a chance to abbreviate one and produce another word from it.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/00002.%20Allah/3.gif
No one can make a dual and plural out of it since it is a Proper Name. And a proper name is always attributable to only and only one.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/001.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Surat%20002/2.133/2.%20Ilaha%20Alif%20Laam%20Haa/2.gif
This is not a name. It can be dualized and also pluralized. And to associate meanings to it this will have to be associated with some specific person and/or object, who/which is a proper noun.
-
aymen
As you take your time to answer what Mazhar Sahib has brought up, I may comment on your remaining postIn fact in every occurrence of the word ?allah? in the great reading the common noun ?the god? fits perfectly. Take for example, 63 where "al-ilah" (the god) is clearly intended
- ...wa huwa allah fi al-samawati ...
- ...and he is the god in the heavens ...
Actually this example of yours proves otherwise; for me after reading what Mazhar Sahib has posted.
Quran says ?ilahinnas? meaning God of mankind, which negates the existence of another deity for mankind to be worshiped.
if we take it as "the god" it means "the god for man kind" and creates the possibility for "the god for jinns" the god for animals" "the god for heavens" the god for earth" so on and so forth but as I mentioned before Quran says repeatedly
Laa ilaaha illaa alllah ?There is no God except Alllah?No one can make a dual and plural out of it since it is a Proper Name. And a proper name is always attributable to only and only one. Mazhar
-
Laa ilaaha illaa alllah ?There is no God except Alllah?
There exists absolutely no such reality as lord/deity/iela'aha except Allah.
is accusative. In default state nouns are in nominative state. Here it is accusative because of the government of which is particle of absolute negation- negation of species- that renders the noun in accusative state which becomes its noun- Noun of La instead of its original nomenclature "subject of nominal sentence". Illa is exceptive particle, and the predicate of La is elided necessarily, since evident from first two words, negating existence. Non existence shows that those are mere conjectural thoughts and imaginative in nature. Only Allah exists.
-
Dear Mazhar and Raaajah,
So which one you think is the proper name of the creator?
1- Allah
2- Ar-rahamaan
3- Al-haqq (please note that there is no plural for this word in the quran)
Or does he have 3 proper (personal) names?
At which place of 287 occurrences of the word from Root "Haqq" you have found it as Proper Name of Allah?
-
Mazhar,
I cannot find now the verse about "allahou al-haqqou...", maybe you or someone else can remember and point out the verse, that could be helpful. I am sure there is one.
On the other hand, for my previous questions, you can replace choice number 3- with anyone of these
5923
-
Pure logic brother Aymen! makes perfect sense.
Thank youPeace
-
Peace Raaajah,
aymen
As you take your time to answer what Mazhar Sahib has brought up, I may comment on your remaining postWhy waste my time on answering a derranged person? This would be like wasting time discussing politics with Gaddafi. You can see his typical derranged Sunni obsession with genitalia here in his conclusion on 741
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602203.0
We know that the majority of men even today are not aware of this fact that they have stiff erection about four times during the sleep each having a duration of 15 minutes, but quite many know that in the early hour of the morning their organ gets erected without their consent/desire. How many of us taken care that it could be noticed by others around us who are not asleep? Private part is private; its dimensions should not come into the sight/vision of others. Carefulness and chastity demand that we must sleep under the cover of unstitched cloth/sheet [}} to secure sanctity and dignity of our private part.
Actually this example of yours proves otherwise; for me after reading what Mazhar Sahib has posted.
But you didn't address the example. In fact, you don't seem to want to address anything I said. You made a big deal about al in allah being not the definite article. When I proved that it was the definite article since with the addition of li it becomes lillah, you simply remained silent after your argument was 100% defeated. Are you too proud to correct? What is the use of this discussion? If you were in my place what would you do if I made a big deal about an argument and I suddenly shut up when it was defeated and didn't go back and admit my mistake and correct it?
Quran says ?ilahinnas? meaning God of mankind, which negates the existence of another deity for mankind to be worshiped.
if we take it as "the god" it means "the god for man kind" and creates the possibility for "the god for jinns" the god for animals" "the god for heavens" the god for earth" so on and so forth but as I mentioned before Quran says repeatedly
Laa ilaaha illaa alllah ?There is no God except Alllah?
No one can make a dual and plural out of it since it is a Proper Name. And a proper name is always attributable to only and only one. MazharThis is all false.
On the first point, the word "ilah" means "god" and not "the god". So the entire argument is based on a misunderstanding.
On the second point, I don't know how can an educated person propose nonsense such that a proper name cannot be plural. Have you ever heard of the proper name Pakistanis ? Does it apply to one and only one?? How do you expect me to take you seriously when you are copying and pasting such nonsense? Think. It is all very simple but you are making it too complicated for yourself and getting lost in the process.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Pure logic brother Aymen! makes perfect sense.
Thank you
PeacePeace brother and thank you for your understanding. The great reading is pure logic and makes perfect sense when we let go of the cloud of sectarian nonsense and preconceptions.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
aymen
On the second point, I don't know how can an educated person propose nonsense such that a proper name cannot be plural. Have you ever heard of the proper name Pakistanis ? Does it apply to one and only one?
We are talking about the Arabic word "http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/00002.%20Allah/3.gif here and it absolutely applies to one and only!
On the first point, the word "ilah" means "god" and not "the god". So the entire argument is based on a misunderstanding.
even if we substitute "the god" with "god" the results would be the same as I mentioned above. However if we use "Allah" meaning the only and one "God" the picture becomes very clear.
-
On the first point, the word "ilah" means "god" and not "the god". So the entire argument is based on a misunderstanding.
On the second point, I don't know how can an educated person propose nonsense such that a proper name cannot be plural. Have you ever heard of the proper name Pakistanis ? Does it apply to one and only one?? How do you expect me to take you seriously when you are copying and pasting such nonsense? Think. It is all very simple but you are making it too complicated for yourself and getting lost in the process.
Stupidity prevails when one makes up his mind of having superior knowledge. Those who know basic Arabic can understand the stupidity in calling as "plural" Proper Name, by a linguist in making.
A proper name can never be pluralized while retaining it as a Proper Name. Pseudo intellectuals never remember the basic principles of anything, and keep talking their nonsense.
-
aymen
How do you expect me to take you seriously when you are copying and pasting such nonsense? Think.
No one can make a dual and plural out of it since it is a Proper Name. And a proper name is always attributable to only and only one. Mazhar
now if you think that Mazhar is talking Non Sense and I am copying it then you must have already refuted the following or you think that this is non sense too.
A proper name is in its nature descriptive of only one object and therefore essentially singular. as soon as it becomes susceptible of plurality, as when we speak of twelve Caesars, or seven Jams es it ceases to be a proper noun.
Spain is the proper name of the country and Spaniard has been by some grammarians called the proper name of people; but later is a generic word characterizing any one of great number of persons by their connection with SpainThe Academician
edited by Albert Picket, John W. Picket