:: Nasara - A sect among Christians? ::
-
This is becoming comical, not only did I never say "the Nazarenes began 100 years ago", but now you have completely changed your argument. Now all your claiming is that there was a sect of "Jewish-Christians" called nazarenes ~2000 years ago. So what?
So you admit their existence.
Your original claim was that the term "nasara" in the Quran was addressing, among others, this very "Nazarene" group from the 1st century; you then attempted to link this group to the present "The Nazarenes uphold the Torah and what remains of the Injeel along with the additions; believing the Messiah is the son of Allah, virgin birth, etc., as still found in the Messianic Christianity practiced today." Since the only such group, in modern times, that even remotely resembles what you described, is the Messianic jewish congregations, I asked a simple question Did this group (messianic jews) exist in 7th century Arabia?? The answer is obviously not, so how are you applying these Quranic verses to people who didn't even exist at the time of the Quranic revelation??
You are creating a strawman, striving to state I am upholding the Messianic Jews are Nazarenes, when I state the teachings of the Nazarenes are still found in the Messianic Christians today.
As well, you continueSo you provided evidence that there were groups mentioned in northern Italy, that were called (by others) "Nazarenes". I'm not sure if you realize this, but this proves nothing with regard to continuity between these groups and 1st century "Nazarenes". In fact, it's just more anachronism to assume that the practices of these "sabbath-keeping Christians" in the 12-13th century were a continuation of 1st century "Jewish-Christian" practices. More importantly, what happened after the 13th century, where are your "Nazarenes" for the last 700 years?? Even more importantly, were they in Arabia in the 7th century??
Proof is given from Historical record that such groups existed up until the 11th Century and beyond. You dismiss it, demanding proof of proof.
Either way though, you are wrong to suggest that modern messianic jewish practices have anything to do with these other sects called "Nazarenes"; whose practices, themselves, may have nothing to do with each other. And you are certianly far from demonstrating that there was anything resembling a community of "Nazarenes" in Arabia in the 7th century, let alone that the Quran was addressing them.
"The Jews say, 'The Christians stand not on anything'; the Christians say, 'The Jews stand not on anything'; yet they recite the Book. So too the ignorant say the like of them. God shall decide between them on the Day of Resurrection touching their differences." Surah 2113
So to clear up this matter Do you believe that there has been a continuous community of "Nazarenes" since the 1st century?? If so, who are they now?? And who were they in 7th century Arabia??
lol I am "striving" to get you to show me some "Nazarenes" from 7th century Arabia. By the way, it's your own sources which say that the 11th century "Nazarenes" were gnostics, so if they are a continuation of 1st century "Nazarenes" then that would make the latter gnostics as well!
lol Paul wrote Romans and Galatians, you know the guy you claim changed Christ's teachings?
What??
Wait I thought the bible couldn't be trusted? How do we know those quotes weren't later insertions? Oh well nevermind, do you realize that you are gratuitously assuming that the 1st century "Nazarene" sect is identical to the description of the early church in the bible?? What about the ebionites or gnostic sects, don't tell me you're abandoning them now??
This proves what exactly?? That these are your "Nazarenes in Arabia"?? These were jews and jewish converts, who had not accepted Christ! Wow you just refuted yourself!!
lol now this one was classic!! So Paul, the evil spiritual father of the "Sabines" aka Roman Catholics, is now responsible for converting Torah observant "Nazarenes" in Arabia?? According to your own "definitions" wouldn't he be responsible for "Sabines" in Arabia, not "Nazarenes"??
Your "proof" is self conradictory nonsense.
So let's summarize, I asked the following questions
-
Were there Messianic Jews (or anything resembling them) in 7th century Arabia? No evidence was provided that such a group existed, or how the Quran could be addressing them.
-
Where does Paul teach pagan polytheism?? After lots of webpaste, presumbaly from islamic propaganda sites, we find no evidence provided for this silly claim.
-
If Paul was "accused of being a leader of the Nazarenes", whose teachings went to Arabia, why do you contrast his "Christianity" with the "Nazarenes" of the 1st century?? Was Paul a Nazarene or was he a pagan polytheist, teaching a syncretic religion?? No answer was given.
-
Where does Paul intend to overthrow Jesus' teachings?? I think we got an attempted answer, although it's enough to make Zakir Naik, or the late Ahmed Deedat blush.
So you have nothing to bring forth that refutes what is given above, taken from the Bible you profess to follow and Historical record. Proof is given from the Bible the teachings of Paul are opposite of what the Messiah (pbuh) is reported to teach, yet you dismiss them. Pagan practices of blood sacrifice and mediators between man and Allah. It is easy enough to see the creation of the Roman Catholic Church by Paul is steeped in pagan sun worship, mother-son worship, and worship of the pagan gods of old. I can continue to bring quotes from Paul's teachings to show this syncretism, as well as the pagan syncretism found in the Hebrew Bible, which you call the Old Testament.
But as you dismiss them as 'quotes from Islamic websites', you are not here to learn but to argue. Such are your choices.
Yet you bring only anger and explanation based on conjecture and no proof? And you expect me to continue discussion with you when all you have done is scream in indignation? Please, such behavior is unbecoming and does not uphold the teachings found in any of the Books revealed by Allah. You profess to follow the Messiah (pbuh), yet you ignore teachingsEnd disputes quickly Mat. 525
Love and forgive your enemies Mat. 543-45
Whatever causes you sin, get rid of it Mat. 529-30I don't think you understand what I am doing here. I'm not here to guide you. As you continue to uphold pagan teachings, and cannot prove they were taught by the Messiah nor authorized in any Book revealed to man, I leave you be to go along the path of your choosing. You will come to know the Truth, though it may be on Judgment Day when it is too late.
I am not here to bring you to Al-Islam. I only bring forth proof of why I believe what I believe. While your words bear witness you uphold nothing as you bring nothing to refute that which is given.
Who was the person who calmly brought proof to show why he believed what he believes?
Who was the person who raged into the aether without bringing anything of substance?
Those who come behind will read our words and see who is given knowledge upheld by proof, and who follows their own desires.Such is the deen - the way of life - of Al-Islam. )
Bring your proof Surah 2111, 657, 842, 1410, 2124, 2764, 2875, 5238I will bid you 'Peace' and leave you with these teachings from your Bible
Who prostrated himself while praying? Mat. 2639
Who greeted fellow believers with "Peace be unto you!" Luke 2436
Who taught us to fast? Mat. 616
Who taught us to care for the poor, weak, hungry, widow, and orphan? Mat. 540-42, Mat. 61
Who taught to worship God and only God? Luke 48, John 173,12, Luke 1819
Who taught to speak good words to everyone? Mat. 712, Mat. 612, Mark 1125-26
Even the brother of the Messiah (pbuh) taught us to say 'God willing' when we speak of upcoming events. "Insha'Allah" James 415
The Messiah (pbuh) was a Muslim.Peace. )
-
-
So you have nothing to bring forth that refutes what is given above, taken from the Bible you profess to follow and Historical record. Proof is given from the Bible the teachings of Paul are opposite of what the Messiah (pbuh) is reported to teach, yet you dismiss them. Such are your choices.
Sir, I have neither the time, nor the inclination to "refute" your insane fantasies about Paul. You're welcome to go read a good Christian commentary on the verses mentioned. Although, frankly, the work is rather childish, and anyone who can think, can see that there is nothing to "refute". You're tilting at windmills. You literally flooded the thread with random, out of context, quotes, then demanded that these "contradictions" be explained. As if anyone was going to write a detailed explanation of each alleged "contradiction". Of course, that was your strategy, wasn't it?? For instance, you claim that the three naratives of Paul's vision are "contradictory", I know exactly where you got this webpaste from, and if you had an ounce of honesty you would have simply gone to a Christian doctor or theologian and read their commentary on those passages. Instead you inserted it in your post, knowing that it was completely irrelevant to your claim that Paul taught "pagan polytheism" and "syncretic religion", or that Paul intended to overthrow Jesus' teachings. You threw it in there, hoping that no one would remember what exactly you were being asked to prove, and so you could claim to be "providing evidence". Thanks for proving what an insane liar you truly are!
If you were at all sincere you would have brought one "contradiction" at a time, presumably the strongest ones, and asked for it to be reconciled. Rather than the "throw everything you can, and hope something sticks" approach.
I don't think you understand what I am doing here. I'm not here to guide you. As you continue to uphold pagan teachings, and cannot prove they were taught by the Messiah nor authorized in any Book revealed to man, I leave you be to go along the path of your choosing.
Here you go again First, you know nothing of my beliefs, as I have not disclosed them to you. Secondly, you are once again insinuating that the bible teaches paganism, which you failed to substaintiate, despite all the webpaste.
I will bid you 'Peace' and leave you with these teachings from your Bible
Who prostrated himself while praying? Mat. 2639
Who greeted fellow believers with "Peace be unto you!" Luke 2436
Who taught us to fast? Mat. 616
Who taught us to care for the poor, weak, hungry, widow, and orphan? Mat. 540-42, Mat. 61
Who taught to worship God and only God? Luke 48, John 173,12, Luke 1819
Who taught to speak good words to everyone? Mat. 712, Mat. 612, Mark 1125-26
Even the brother of the Messiah (pbuh) taught us to say 'God willing' when we speak of upcoming events. "Insha'Allah" James 415
The Messiah (pbuh) was a Muslim.Have you ever looked up the word "anachronism"??
-
Have you ever looked up the word "anachronism"??
Manifest proof of your ignorance of the teachings found in the Quran.
You believe 'Al-Islam' is a new faith created in 600 AD, and the term 'Muslim' an Arabic convention.
The deen of Al-Islam is the creed of Abraham (pbuh), and we were named 'Muslims' - the ones who submit - before the revelation of the Quran and after."and struggle for God as is His due, for He has chosen you, and has laid on you no impediment in your religion, being the creed of your father Abraham; He named you Muslims (almuslimeena) aforetime and in this, that the Messenger might be a witness against you, and that you might be witnesses against mankind. So perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and hold you fast to God; He is your Protector -- an excellent Protector, an excellent Helper." Surah 2278
I'm not an Arab. I'm white, blue-eyes, Scot/Irish American born into a Trinitarian Christian family.
Al-Islam is a way of life, revealed in the Quran for all nations, all beings.Enjoy this life. Surah 1430
Peace.
-
Salaam all,
I was thinking about "Nasara". Are they a sect from Christians or Christians themselves? Can someone please put some light on understand this and answer the following questions. Thanks.
514
514 And from those who have said We are Nasaras, We have taken their covenant and they have forgotten much of what they were reminded of; so We planted between them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they had done.Q1- The aayat above talks about them who call themselves Nasara, either they are Christians or a sect from Christians, the clue in the above aayat is "We planted between them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection", so, who could be those possibly?
518
518 And the Yahudis and the Nasaras said We are the children of Allah, and His loved ones. Say Then why does He punish you for your sins? No, you are merely human beings which He has created. He forgives whom He pleases, and He punishes whom He pleases. And to Allah is the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is in-between, and to Him is the destiny.Q2- The key point in 518 is "The Nasaras said that WE are children of Allah". Do Christians or a sect of Christians say this?
551
551 O you who believe, do not take the Yahudis and the Nasaras as allies, for they are allies to one another; and whoever takes them as such from among you is one of them. Allah does not guide the wicked people.Q3- If we take Christians or a sect of Christians as the Nasaras in the above aayat, are they allies with the Yahudis and vice versa?
930
930 And the Yahudis said Uzair is the son of Allah, and the Nasaras said The Maseeh is the son of Allah. Such is their utterances with their mouths, they imitate the sayings of those who rejected before them. Allah will fight them. They are deluded from the truth!Q4- The Nasaras also said The Maseeh is son of Allah. How they say two different things? i.e., "We are children of Allah" and "The Maseeh is son of Allah"
2113
2113 And the Yahudis say The Nasaras are on nothing, and the Nasaras say The Yahudis are on nothing, while they are both reciting the Book! Similarly, those who do not know have said the same thing. Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection in what they dispute.Q5- Do Christians or a sect from Christians say that "The Yahudis are on nothing"? And how about 551 it says they are allies to each other?
Thanks again.
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us all to His true path pr
Mohammed M. KhanThe Koran does not categorize people based on sects but faith. There are those who believe among the Christians and those who don't. When the Koran attacks a religious community it is the disbelievers its talking about. The Koran does not generalize religious communities and is non sectarian.
-
The Koran does not categorize people based on sects but faith. There are those who believe among the Christians and those who don't. When the Koran attacks a religious community it is the disbelievers its talking about. The Koran does not generalize religious communities and is non sectarian.
Salaam Bigmo,
I totally agree with you on the highlighted part above. Thanks bro handshake
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan -
Peace mmKhan,
The word Nasara probably in some cases refers to specific Jewish Christians, and in other places to Christians in general. The word "nasara" most likely refers to Christians as Nazarenes. Before the term "Christian" was applied to the disciples of Jesus, they were called by various names, such as "followers of the Way". They were called Nazarenes pretty early on, refering to their belief that Jesus was the Messiah/"Branch" of Zechariah 38 (Hebrew "netzer", "branch"
"But, to detain you no further, I beg you in your kindness to hear us briefly. For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 244-5)." (Note this is an orator's accusation of Paul before Roman authorities.)
The only way, in my opinion, to tell the difference in who is being addressed in the Quran is the context. Some of the things that the Nasara are told not to believe would have only been believed by non-Jewish Christians.
Peace,
JoelSalaam all,
I was thinking about "Nasara". Are they a sect from Christians or Christians themselves? Can someone please put some light on understand this and answer the following questions. Thanks.
514
514 And from those who have said We are Nasaras, We have taken their covenant and they have forgotten much of what they were reminded of; so We planted between them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they had done.Q1- The aayat above talks about them who call themselves Nasara, either they are Christians or a sect from Christians, the clue in the above aayat is "We planted between them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection", so, who could be those possibly?
518
518 And the Yahudis and the Nasaras said We are the children of Allah, and His loved ones. Say Then why does He punish you for your sins? No, you are merely human beings which He has created. He forgives whom He pleases, and He punishes whom He pleases. And to Allah is the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is in-between, and to Him is the destiny.Q2- The key point in 518 is "The Nasaras said that WE are children of Allah". Do Christians or a sect of Christians say this?
551
551 O you who believe, do not take the Yahudis and the Nasaras as allies, for they are allies to one another; and whoever takes them as such from among you is one of them. Allah does not guide the wicked people.Q3- If we take Christians or a sect of Christians as the Nasaras in the above aayat, are they allies with the Yahudis and vice versa?
930
930 And the Yahudis said Uzair is the son of Allah, and the Nasaras said The Maseeh is the son of Allah. Such is their utterances with their mouths, they imitate the sayings of those who rejected before them. Allah will fight them. They are deluded from the truth!Q4- The Nasaras also said The Maseeh is son of Allah. How they say two different things? i.e., "We are children of Allah" and "The Maseeh is son of Allah"
2113
2113 And the Yahudis say The Nasaras are on nothing, and the Nasaras say The Yahudis are on nothing, while they are both reciting the Book! Similarly, those who do not know have said the same thing. Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection in what they dispute.Q5- Do Christians or a sect from Christians say that "The Yahudis are on nothing"? And how about 551 it says they are allies to each other?
Thanks again.
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us all to His true path pr
Mohammed M. Khan -
Peace mmKhan,
The word Nasara probably in some cases refers to specific Jewish Christians, and in other places to Christians in general. The word "nasara" most likely refers to Christians as Nazarenes. Before the term "Christian" was applied to the disciples of Jesus, they were called by various names, such as "followers of the Way". They were called Nazarenes pretty early on, refering to their belief that Jesus was the Messiah/"Branch" of Zechariah 38 (Hebrew "netzer", "branch"
"But, to detain you no further, I beg you in your kindness to hear us briefly. For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 244-5)." (Note this is an orator's accusation of Paul before Roman authorities.)
The only way, in my opinion, to tell the difference in who is being addressed in the Quran is the context. Some of the things that the Nasara are told not to believe would have only been believed by non-Jewish Christians.
Peace,
JoelSalaam Joel,
My understanding as per now about Yahood and Nasara is based on 930
930
930 And the Yahudis said Uzair is the son of Allah, and the Nasaras said The Maseeh is the son of Allah. Such is their utterances with their mouths, they imitate the sayings of those who rejected before them. Allah will fight them. They are deluded from the truth!This aayat is clear about Yahood and Nasara, whosoever said "Uzair is son of Allah" is a Yahoodi and whosoever said "The Maseeh is son of Allah" is Nasara. Either they are from Jews or Christians or Jewish-Christians or any other they will fell into the categories mentioned above.
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan -
Peace mmkhan,
I think that would apply to some Jews and Nazarenes, but not all of them. Look at the ayat following 930
931 - "They have taken their Priests and Monks to be patrons besides God, and the Messiah, son of Mary, while they were only commanded to serve One god, there is no god except He, be He glorified against what they set up. (Free Minds)"
I think the strong words against them only applies to those who took on patrons and authorities in the place of God, whether that is a rabbi, or priest or monk, or even the Messiah. Historically, there were groups of Nazarenes who would not have placed that kind of authority in a priest or monk, or even given Jesus the same authority as God. I believe the other ayats that speak kindly of Jews and Nazarenes speak to those who had not added partners and patrons to their religion. That's why I think the context of the passages in the Quran are more important than simply lumping them all together.
Peace,
JoelSalaam Joel,
My understanding as per now about Yahood and Nasara is based on 930
930
930 And the Yahudis said Uzair is the son of Allah, and the Nasaras said The Maseeh is the son of Allah. Such is their utterances with their mouths, they imitate the sayings of those who rejected before them. Allah will fight them. They are deluded from the truth!This aayat is clear about Yahood and Nasara, whosoever said "Uzair is son of Allah" is a Yahoodi and whosoever said "The Maseeh is son of Allah" is Nasara. Either they are from Jews or Christians or Jewish-Christians or any other they will fell into the categories mentioned above.
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan -
Peace mmkhan,
I think that would apply to some Jews and Nazarenes, but not all of them. Look at the ayat following 930
931 - "They have taken their Priests and Monks to be patrons besides God, and the Messiah, son of Mary, while they were only commanded to serve One god, there is no god except He, be He glorified against what they set up. (Free Minds)"
I think the strong words against them only applies to those who took on patrons and authorities in the place of God, whether that is a rabbi, or priest or monk, or even the Messiah. Historically, there were groups of Nazarenes who would not have placed that kind of authority in a priest or monk, or even given Jesus the same authority as God. I believe the other ayats that speak kindly of Jews and Nazarenes speak to those who had not added partners and patrons to their religion. That's why I think the context of the passages in the Quran are more important than simply lumping them all together.
Peace,
JoelSalaam Joel,
My understanding is different than yours bro. Why you take only a single following aayat in reference to 930? Why not 932, 933, etc...
I believe that when a topic has been split into different aayaats, then each aayat is stand alone. It may have a relation with the following aayaats or aayaats before it, but it is not always necessary, otherwise what could be the possible reason to dividing this into two or more aayaats when already there are many big aayaats available in AlQuraan.
Secondly, as per my understanding if there is a link with the following aayat then the following aayat will begin with either waw or fa in order to relate the previous aayat.
If there is not waw or fa in the beginning of the following aayat, then it has no relation with the previous aayat or there might be only a single possibility of relation mentioning of later period/long after from what was already mentioned in previous aayat.
This is how I understand at this time.
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan -
Salaam Joel,
My understanding is different than yours bro. Why you take only a single following aayat in reference to 930? Why not 932, 933, etc...
Because I think it has the most relevance to what you are asking. The following verses ARE related to the subject matter, but not to your question about the identity of the Nasara. )
I believe that when a topic has been split into different aayaats, then each aayat is stand alone. It may have a relation with the following aayaats or aayaats before it, but it is not always necessary, otherwise what could be the possible reason to dividing this into two or more aayaats when already there are many big aayaats available in AlQuraan.
I think this is the case sometimes. But without looking at the context in this case, it is pretty much impossible to determine who "they" are. Contextually, since there have been Christians who elevated Jesus to the place of God, and elevated monks and priests to a place of high authority in place of God, then we can determine that this applies to those kinds of Christians. In some Eastern Orthodox churches, it is still customary to greet a priest with, "Father, bless ."
God only knows why some ayats are longer than others. I don't know classical Arabic (something I plan to change soon, God willing). Maybe it is related to the cadence of the text. Maybe it is related to any amount of time that passed between the revealing of the ayats. But I think some ayats make no sense or are impossible to understand when looked at in a contextual vacuum. In this case, we have some reliable history to confirm a contextual reading. While I do not believe we should interpret Qur'an BECAUSE of history, but I see nothing wrong if history or science or logic support a clear reading of the text.
Peace bro,
Joel -
Because I think it has the most relevance to what you are asking. The following verses ARE related to the subject matter, but not to your question about the identity of the Nasara.
I think this is the case sometimes. But without looking at the context in this case, it is pretty much impossible to determine who "they" are. Contextually, since there have been Christians who elevated Jesus to the place of God, and elevated monks and priests to a place of high authority in place of God, then we can determine that this applies to those kinds of Christians. In some Eastern Orthodox churches, it is still customary to greet a priest with, "Father, bless ."
God only knows why some ayats are longer than others. I don't know classical Arabic (something I plan to change soon, God willing). Maybe it is related to the cadence of the text. Maybe it is related to any amount of time that passed between the revealing of the ayats. But I think some ayats make no sense or are impossible to understand when looked at in a contextual vacuum. In this case, we have some reliable history to confirm a contextual reading. While I do not believe we should interpret Qur'an BECAUSE of history, but I see nothing wrong if history or science or logic support a clear reading of the text.
Peace bro,
JoelSalaam Joel,
For the highlighted part above, I think we have already discussed it in another thread and I don't agree with you on that completely. I believe that AlQuraan is self sufficient to explain its aayaats, we need more study to understand it instead of taking other sources to support which may lead us to misunderstand aayaats.
Brother, you can take a look at the following aayat how it talks about two totally different topics.
1785
1785 And they ask you concerning the Rooh. Say "The Rooh is from the authority of my Lord;" and the knowledge you were given was but very little.In a single small aayat two different things has been discussed. Red part talks about the Rooh and blue part has nothing to do about the Rooh but it is about knowledge that was given. So, what context you will look for here bro? And there are many more such aayaats.
Hope you understand my point.
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan -
Peace mmKhan,
I see your point. But I think the benefit of the grammatical construction is to show where the quote ends in terms of what the prophet was to say to others, and what God was saying to him. I don't see how this contradicts with looking at the context, it just means I need to learn classical Arabic.
Besides, knowing what I know about the speculative debates among Christians about the ruh, I think it is possible to arrive at the same conclusion. God was telling the prophet to stay out of their conversations - with good reason.
Again, there's no question that knowledge of the Quran itself is first in understanding it. At the moment, there's too much going on in my personal life, but as soon as I can I'm going to start learning Arabic. But where you and I disagree is on the use of secondary sources. Going back to the topic where we didn't exactly agree if the Quran says that it confirms "what is in the hands" then there is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with verifying if this is true. In fact, it is how I came to be a muslim. ) If there is history that confirms a clear reading of the text, I see nothing wrong with this. But I will admit that without knowledge of the Quran itself there is a danger of reading too much into the text. I keep this in mind as often as I can.
Peace brother,
JoelSalaam Joel,
For the highlighted part above, I think we have already discussed it in another thread and I don't agree with you on that completely. I believe that AlQuraan is self sufficient to explain its aayaats, we need more study to understand it instead of taking other sources to support which may lead us to misunderstand aayaats.
Brother, you can take a look at the following aayat how it talks about two totally different topics.
1785
1785 And they ask you concerning the Rooh. Say "The Rooh is from the authority of my Lord;" and the knowledge you were given was but very little.In a single small aayat two different things has been discussed. Red part talks about the Rooh and blue part has nothing to do about the Rooh but it is about knowledge that was given. So, what context you will look for here bro? ) And there are many more such aayaats.
Hope you understand my point.
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan -
Peace mmKhan,
I see your point. But I think the benefit of the grammatical construction is to show where the quote ends in terms of what the prophet was to say to others, and what God was saying to him. I don't see how this contradicts with looking at the context, it just means I need to learn classical Arabic.
Besides, knowing what I know about the speculative debates among Christians about the ruh, I think it is possible to arrive at the same conclusion. God was telling the prophet to stay out of their conversations - with good reason.
Again, there's no question that knowledge of the Quran itself is first in understanding it. At the moment, there's too much going on in my personal life, but as soon as I can I'm going to start learning Arabic. But where you and I disagree is on the use of secondary sources. Going back to the topic where we didn't exactly agree if the Quran says that it confirms "what is in the hands" then there is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with verifying if this is true. In fact, it is how I came to be a muslim. ) If there is history that confirms a clear reading of the text, I see nothing wrong with this. But I will admit that without knowledge of the Quran itself there is a danger of reading too much into the text. I keep this in mind as often as I can.
Peace brother,
JoelSalaam Joel,
First, I don't find any aayat mentioning that Arabic/classical Arabic is needed for guidance. I understand, you may ask that AlQuraan says it in sent in Arabic Language, I agree but not needed for guidance, just you have look at the patterns and designs as it is a guidance for whole mankind.
As for the blue part above, I cannot say anything but -X
For the red part, you must understand that there will not be any danger in the Book of guidance until and unless you add your personal opinions without any aayat.
Anyways, we are going far away from the main topic. I will agree to disagree on this part but still handshake
I suggest you to seek Allah's help and guidance instead of looking for other sources, just a suggestion brother, either you can take it or throw it away, its up to you. )
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhanPS. I am not against learning Arabic Language, it may surely help you but not to understand AlQuraan completely, as so called Arabic grammar has conflict with the Text of AlQuraan in many places.
-
Anyways, we are going far away from the main topic. I will agree to disagree on this part but still handshake
I suggest you to seek Allah's help and guidance instead of looking for other sources, just a suggestion brother, either you can take it or throw it away, its up to you. )
Peace mmKhan,
Yes, we did get off topic. While we may not agree on this, I have come to respect your no-nonsense approach to the Quran. handshake
Your suggestion is a wise one. )
Peace,
Joel -
Peace mmKhan,
Yes, we did get off topic. While we may not agree on this, I have come to respect your no-nonsense approach to the Quran. handshake
Your suggestion is a wise one. )
Peace,
JoelSalaam Joel,
Thanks! handshake
May Allah bless you brother and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhan