Israel a grateful servant : He never was a prophet neither his progeny was
-
03035 - Imran's imraat .
11071 - Ibrahim's imraat .
19005 - Zachariyya's imraat .
66010 - Nooh's imraat .
66010 - Loot's imraat .
66011 - Firaun's imraat .04001 - Nafs's zauja .
07019 - Adam's zauja .
33053 - Allah's Rasool's zauja .
33059 - Nabi's zauja .mmKhan
Salam,
The word Imraah / Women is simply the opposite of Imraa / Men , and when the word Imraah / Women is used before a Masculine Men's name , like Imraah Noah or Imraah Imran , simply mean the wife of Noah , wife of Imran , the term Imraah of someone is where people who has scripture background got the culture of naming officially their women by similar term , like Madame Anderson or Ms Anderson ,a married women is not called by her own name in public or in scripture , simply to declare that she is a married women , nowhere in the Quran a women is named by her name , except Meriem the daughter of Imran , simply because she was not married to any men .
A verse to show the term Imraa / Men the opposite of Imraah / Women
19-21 O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man ( Imraa ) nor was thy mother unchaste .
The term Imraah of ( the wife of) is only used for Mankind , the term has a social functionality , the term Imraah of ( the wife of) is different then the term zawjah of ( the pair of ) , the second can be used for all creatures ( animals and plants ) , also the term Zawj / Pair can be called for men and women , a women can call her husband my pair (Zawji) , and the men can call his wife my pair ( Zawji) , in the other hand the term Imraah of ( the wife of) can only used for women (womankind) , to highlight her social statue as a married women to the men mentioned after the term Imraah so everybody will know that she is a married women , and her husband is known too , like Imraah Lut , Imraah Firaa'wn etc.
The term Zawj / Pair is used in the Quran for some women only because the speech and the case of the verses is not talking about them , they are not the subject of the speech so the Quran use the term Zawj / Pair , when a women is the subject of the speech then the Quran use the term Imraah of ( the wife of) and he give the name of her husband , like
3-35 when the wife of 'Imran (Imraah 'Imran ) said My Lord! I have vowed unto Thee that which is in my belly as a consecrated (offering). Accept it from me. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Hearer, the Knower!
12-51 He Said "What was your condition when you sought to seduce Joseph?" They said, "Perfect is Allah ! We know about him no evil." The wife of al-'Azeez (Imraah Al-'Azeez ) said, "Now the truth has become evident. It was I who sought to seduce him, and indeed, he is of the truthful
In both verse the speech is about the wife of 'Imran and Al-'Azeez , so the term Imraah / wife is used and indicating their husbands , same as in verse 66-10 , 66-11 , 12-30
When the verse is not talking about the women her self but just she is included in the speech , the term Zawjah / pair is used
And We said O Adam! Dwell thou and thy pair ( Zawjok ك in the Garden, and eat ye freely (of the fruits) thereof where ye will; but come not nigh this tree lest ye become wrong-doers.
33-37 when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, "Keep your pair ( Zawjak ك and fear Allah ," while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished.
In both verse the speech is not about informing something about the wife of Zayed and Adam , they are not the subject of the speech , so the term Zawjah / pair is used , same as in verse 7-19.
So both term Imraah and Zawj / Pair has nothing to do with is it a single specific person mentioned or not.
-
Salam,
The word Imraah / Women is simply the opposite of Imraa / Men , and when the word Imraah / Women is used before a Masculine Men's name , like Imraah Noah or Imraah Imran , simply mean the wife of Noah , wife of Imran , the term Imraah of someone is where people who has scripture background got the culture of naming officially their women by similar term , like Madame Anderson or Ms Anderson ,a married women is not called by her own name in public or in scripture , simply to declare that she is a married women , nowhere in the Quran a women is named by her name , except Meriem the daughter of Imran , simply because she was not married to any men .
A verse to show the term Imraa / Men the opposite of Imraah / Women
19-21 O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man ( Imraa ) nor was thy mother unchaste .
The term Imraah of ( the wife of) is only used for Mankind , the term has a social functionality , the term Imraah of ( the wife of) is different then the term zawjah of ( the pair of ) , the second can be used for all creatures ( animals and plants ) , also the term Zawj / Pair can be called for men and women , a women can call her husband my pair (Zawji) , and the men can call his wife my pair ( Zawji) , in the other hand the term Imraah of ( the wife of) can only used for women (womankind) , to highlight her social statue as a married women to the men mentioned after the term Imraah so everybody will know that she is a married women , and her husband is known too , like Imraah Lut , Imraah Firaa'wn etc.
The term Zawj / Pair is used in the Quran for some women only because the speech and the case of the verses is not talking about them , they are not the subject of the speech so the Quran use the term Zawj / Pair , when a women is the subject of the speech then the Quran use the term Imraah of ( the wife of) and he give the name of her husband , like
3-35 when the wife of 'Imran (Imraah 'Imran ) said My Lord! I have vowed unto Thee that which is in my belly as a consecrated (offering). Accept it from me. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Hearer, the Knower!
12-51 He Said "What was your condition when you sought to seduce Joseph?" They said, "Perfect is Allah ! We know about him no evil." The wife of al-'Azeez (Imraah Al-'Azeez ) said, "Now the truth has become evident. It was I who sought to seduce him, and indeed, he is of the truthful
In both verse the speech is about the wife of 'Imran and Al-'Azeez , so the term Imraah / wife is used and indicating their husbands , same as in verse 66-10 , 66-11 , 12-30
When the verse is not talking about the women her self but just she is included in the speech , the term Zawjah / pair is used
And We said O Adam! Dwell thou and thy pair ( Zawjok ك in the Garden, and eat ye freely (of the fruits) thereof where ye will; but come not nigh this tree lest ye become wrong-doers.
33-37 when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, "Keep your pair ( Zawjak ك and fear Allah ," while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished.
In both verse the speech is not about informing something about the wife of Zayed and Adam , they are not the subject of the speech , so the term Zawjah / pair is used , same as in verse 7-19.
So both term Imraah and Zawj / Pair has nothing to do with is it a single specific person mentioned or not.
could imraatu at any point be the same as 'a female descendant of'? would it always have to mean 'wife of'? Thinking in the terms of 'children of Israel' are not the actual sons and daughters of the man Israel but rather the descendants of...
Reason for asking is this is something that has been bugging me about chapter 19 and 3. Follow my thinking here..........
Amram (Imran) was the father of Moses Aaron and Mariam and 'some' verses, not all, point to/could imply this Mariam being the mother of Jesus making Moses his uncle........the timing historically is 1500 years out.
Zakariya matches up with being around at the time of Jesus as he was the father of John. The biblical and Quranic accounts of Zakariya, Mariam, Jesus, John match spot on.
Zachariya the bible describes as a priest 'of the courses of Abia'. Abi was the daughter of (another) Zachariah (as Quranic Zakariya is Zacharias the father of John and Zachariah and Zacharias are 2 different characters in the bible)........stay with me here....... Elisabeth, the wife of Zachariya and mother of John is described as 'of the daughters of Imran' (Amram - the father of Moses, Aaron and Mariam) which to me means 'descendants of' as the bible is talking 'the family of, children of, etc' meaning 'of the family of' like the family of David etc, children of Israel etc..........am I making sense?
I have lost track now but I knew what I was saying brickwall brickwall
-
Salam AlKitab,
nice post but I have a question for you
There is a "Delay " of the singular pronoun "Inaho / he " , it can be placed in front of the word " Progeny " but doesn't fit for the context of the speech and "the Rhetoric "
The "Delay " is as below
17-2/3 ( ُ
17-2 And We gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel that you not take other than Me as Disposer of affairs,
17-3 (He is ) progeny of those We carried with Noah. Indeed, he was a grateful servant.The singular pronoun "Inaho / he " in front of "progeny of those We carried with Noah" was deleted and delayed till the end of the phrases , you can see how the singular pronoun "Inaho / he " in front of "progeny of those We carried with Noah" doesn't fit at all and there is loose repetition , so the delay of the singular pronoun "Inaho / he " is because of the context of the speech and "the Rhetoric " .
when I read the quranic texte in 173 I understand that the "HE" refers to Noah and not Israel!!!!!
Please comment/answer.
thanks
-
The problem here is all this is disputing the Old Testament and New testament and I see the argument going in circles. Its trying to understand the verses of the Quran beyond what the verses were designed for.
I'm trying to match it all up. There are verses in Quran talking about something and then again in other chapters so likely the old books will be the same, just trying to find those references in the old books and beginning to see they are similar to Quran in that it all didn't necessarily happen as written........by that I mean in the order it was written/said......if that makes sense.
I'm not trying to dispute, I'm trying to get straight who was who and when, because I am sure it will match up.
I was thinking last night, the whole thing, all the books, it's like a huge jigsaw puzzle that will make 3 small ones or one large one and the pieces can fit in more than one way so far........but then you have to juggle as you can get one part done and then it won't fit with another part as those pieces have more than one way of fitting, but it will fit into a whole correctly.
brickwall
-
What bothers me is in 17.3 the first word "dhurriyatA" it is acusative, so what is the nominative and the verb that go with it? In Yusuf's Ali translation he inserts a vocative "Oh dhurriyata" but that is his insertion, I do not see a reason for except to make sense in one way or other, be it justified or not.
Any ideas?
Salaam
-
Peace all.
" Dhurriyatta man hamalna maa Nuh" in 173 to me are " the descendants of noah"?
Peace.
-
could imraatu at any point be the same as 'a female descendant of'? would it always have to mean 'wife of'? Thinking in the terms of 'children of Israel' are not the actual sons and daughters of the man Israel but rather the descendants of...
Reason for asking is this is something that has been bugging me about chapter 19 and 3. Follow my thinking here..........
Amram (Imran) was the father of Moses Aaron and Mariam and 'some' verses, not all, point to/could imply this Mariam being the mother of Jesus making Moses his uncle........the timing historically is 1500 years out.
Zakariya matches up with being around at the time of Jesus as he was the father of John. The biblical and Quranic accounts of Zakariya, Mariam, Jesus, John match spot on.
Zachariya the bible describes as a priest 'of the courses of Abia'. Abi was the daughter of (another) Zachariah (as Quranic Zakariya is Zacharias the father of John and Zachariah and Zacharias are 2 different characters in the bible)........stay with me here....... Elisabeth, the wife of Zachariya and mother of John is described as 'of the daughters of Imran' (Amram - the father of Moses, Aaron and Mariam) which to me means 'descendants of' as the bible is talking 'the family of, children of, etc' meaning 'of the family of' like the family of David etc, children of Israel etc..........am I making sense?
I have lost track now but I knew what I was saying brickwall brickwall
Aisha I kindly recommend you use the Quran as reference while studying , judging , correcting or rejecting what you read / learn from other book and not the opposite , studying other scripture is recommended as per 6-156 , but you have to take the Quran as last reference as per 5-48 and 27-76 , and if turns out that you didn't find what you are looking for in the Quran then simply because its not a important subject in the eyes of the recent book.
-
Salam AlKitab,
nice post but I have a question for you
when I read the quranic texte in 173 I understand that the "HE" refers to Noah and not Israel!!!!!
Please comment/answer.
thanks
Salam member Herbman and welcome ,
They key to understand this is to read not only the wording but examine the context of the speech accordingly .
The verse 173 is talking about the progeny , and the verse said its a progeny of who was carried with Noah , ( notice who is referring to somebody) the verse here still talk about the progeny , and when the verse said he was a grateful servant it is still talking about the progeny and by using the article HE the verse is referring to Israel because he is the progeny of who was carried with Noah in the ship , it can't be referring to his sons because the article he is singular and it can't be referring to Noah because Noah is not the subject of the speech in 17-3 , the subject of the sentence in 17-3 is the word progeny so the HE in he was a grateful servant is referring to the subject ( progeny) so "he" is referring to Israel as he is the progeny of who was carried with Noah .
The other key to understand this is The relative pronoun " Who / / man " used in
17-2 And We gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel that you not take other than Me as Disposer of affairs,
17-3 progeny of who We carried with Noah. Indeed, he was a grateful servant."Who" is pronoun referring to who ? It is referring to the one that was with Noah in the ship , so Israel is a progeny ( a branch ) from the one ( the source ) who was in the ship with Noah.
The context of the speech in 17-3 is not talking neither about the sons of Israel nor about Noah , it's about Israel as he is the progeny mentioned in there as being from the one who was carried in the ship.
If Israel was in the ship the verse should be like this
17-2 And We gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel that you not take other than Me as Disposer of affairs,
17-3 The progeny that We carried with Noah. Indeed, he was a grateful servant.17-2/3
But the verse is simply not saying that
-
Aisha I kindly recommend you use the Quran as reference while studying , judging , correcting or rejecting what you read / learn from other book and not the opposite , studying other scripture is recommended as per 6-156 , but you have to take the Quran as last reference as per 5-48 and 27-76 , and if turns out that you didn't find what you are looking for in the Quran then simply because its not a important subject in the eyes of the recent book.
I was studying, not judging, correcting or rejecting and I was using Quran and Torah and Gospel as God says He sent these with the same message so I would expect them to match up, which is what I was studying........nothing to do with correcting judging or rejecting any and nothing to do with 'finding what I'm looking for', just to match things up.
I think the importance of Moses sister being Mary mother of Jesus is pretty important and is in the recent book and I was studying what the Torah and bible did with the 1500 years historical difference, not to mention spreading that little gem of a secret across 2 different books, Torah and Gospel, and of course 2 different bunches of followers as the Jews rejected Jesus, which they wouldn't have if uncle Moses was around as well - and by taking Mariam as the mother of Jesus didn't really give the Jews long enough to mess up before God sends the nephew of Moses to sort it out?? To me these 2 Mariams are different women altogether which is why I asked the question I asked you and you didn't answer. peace
It was my personal question and my personal 'place' of study at this time, no way am I saying anyone else needs bother with it, but it interests me and that's again why I asked the question I did peace
-
Salam member Herbman and welcome ,
They key to understand this is to read not only the wording but examine the context of the speech accordingly .
The verse 173 is talking about the progeny , and the verse said its a progeny of who was carried with Noah , ( notice who is referring to somebody) the verse here still talk about the progeny , and when the verse said he was a grateful servant it is still talking about the progeny and by using the article HE the verse is referring to Israel because he is the progeny of who was carried with Noah in the ship , it can't be referring to his sons because the article he is singular and it can't be referring to Noah because Noah is not the subject of the speech in 17-3 , the subject of the sentence in 17-3 is the word progeny so the HE in he was a grateful servant is referring to the subject ( progeny) so "he" is referring to Israel as he is the progeny of who was carried with Noah .
The other key to understand this is The relative pronoun " Who / / man " used in
17-2 And We gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel that you not take other than Me as Disposer of affairs,
17-3 progeny of who We carried with Noah. Indeed, he was a grateful servant."Who" is pronoun referring to who ? It is referring to the one that was with Noah in the ship , so Israel is a progeny ( a branch ) from the one ( the source ) who was in the ship with Noah.
The context of the speech in 17-3 is not talking neither about the sons of Israel nor about Noah , it's about Israel as he is the progeny mentioned in there as being from the one who was carried in the ship.
If Israel was in the ship the verse should be like this
17-2 And We gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel that you not take other than Me as Disposer of affairs,
17-3 The progeny that We carried with Noah. Indeed, he was a grateful servant.17-2/3
But the verse is simply not saying that
In my understanding the exsamination of the verse point to Isreal not Mussa/ Moses , simply because Mussa/ Moses is directly from the progeny of Nuh/Noah not from the ones that was carried with him in the ship .
The ONLY people carried on the ark were Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives.
-
Peace all.
" Dhurriyatta man hamalna maa Nuh" in 173 to me are " the descendants of noah"?
Peace.
Salaam, good logic,
Thank you for your answer, still I am not sure, because the action mentioned is hamalna, God is the actor and dhurriya is not the object but to me looks like a subject described with the action performed with the object from whom the dhurriyat derives. So I am looking for something that would justify the accusative, but the hamalna, as far as I can understand it now, does not fit , it refers to "man". I must be lacking some element of the grammar or soemthing else. As it is it seems, to try to decide as to each element of the ayas to me is problematic.
Thanks again
Salaam
-
The verse 173 is talking about the progeny , and the verse said its a progeny of who was carried with Noah , ( notice who is referring to somebody) the verse here still talk about the progeny , and when the verse said he was a grateful servant it is still talking about the progeny and by using the article HE the verse is referring to Israel because he is the progeny of who was carried with Noah in the ship , it can't be referring to his sons because the article he is singular and it can't be referring to Noah because Noah is not the subject of the speech in 17-3 , the subject of the sentence in 17-3 is the word progeny so the HE in he was a grateful servant is referring to the subject ( progeny) so "he" is referring to Israel as he is the progeny of who was carried with Noah .
Salaam, Alkitab,
I may be tempted to think it talks about Noah, but as I wrote answering good logic, the whole grammar with the accusative dhurriyata is still confusing me. At any rate, since dhurriyatA is accusative how can you make it the subject of the sentence. It should be the object of a sentence, but which sentence?
Salaam
-
The ONLY people carried on the ark were Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives.
I Kindly appreciate , next time , if it doesn't bother you ,if you can provide proof from the Quran about what you are Saying / Claiming .
There were other people with Noah in the ship , the proof is
11-40 Until when Our command came and Fara Al-tannour , We said, "Load upon the ship of each two mates and your family, except those about whom the word has preceded, and whoever has believed." But none had believed with him, except a few.
So on the ship there was Noah his family and those who believed
-
Peace all.
" Dhurriyatta man hamalna maa Nuh" in 173 to me are " the descendants of noah"?
Peace.
Salam Gd logic ,
Durreayh in the verse 17-3 is singular not plural , so if you translated it to descendant it should be translated to singular form too not plural , so it won't be pointing to a group of people but to a single person , but this is not the main proof that its about a single person ( Isreal) the main proof is the singular article HE in front of He was a grateful servant .
-
I Kindly appreciate , next time , if it doesn't bother you ,if you can provide proof from the Quran about what you are Saying / Claiming .
There were other people with Noah in the ship , the proof is
11-40 Until when Our command came and Fara Al-tannour , We said, "Load upon the ship of each two mates and your family, except those about whom the word has preceded, and whoever has believed." But none had believed with him, except a few.
So on the ship there was Noah his family and those who believed
I remind you that Allah sent the Torah and sent the Quran as a reminder of what was sent before it. 3.3 and many others. By reminding us this as well as describing some of the things in it then it would seem logical to LOOK at it, wouldn't it?
Genesis 7
1 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.
6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him and the Lord shut him in.
17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 8
14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.15 And God spake unto Noah, saying,
16 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.
17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.
18 And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him
19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.
20 And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
It goes on of course and in Genesis 10 you will find that Magog is the grandson of Noah from his son Japheth......but that's yet another debate....
So yes there were people on the boat with Noah, there was his wife, his sons and their wives, they were the believers and they were the ones saved so any progeny will be from Noah's family as the rest of the earth inhabitants were gone.........this is where you will also find the rainbow and what that signifies. handshake
-
Peace Aisha,
I would not use these books as source for guidance, because the book you refer to are simply NOT the Gospel and Thora described in AQ!
If you still keep thinking these books are the ones refered in AQ, please explain to us
- why is Lot considered as a drinking man and had sex with his daughters while AQ say he was a great servant
- why is prophete Solom described as wrong doer at the end of his life while AQ say the contrary
- why is the OT describing Moses death when he is supposed to have written it
etc etc...
Peace
-
Peace Aisha,
I would not use these books as source for guidance, because the book you refer to are simply NOT the Gospel and Thora described in AQ!
Peace herbman. Allah gave the Law to Moses, the Law are the first 5 books of the OT, this is the Torah and this was the Torah that was around when Allah revealed Quran confirming it.
If you still keep thinking these books are the ones refered in AQ, please explain to us
- why is Lot considered as a drinking man and had sex with his daughters while AQ say he was a great servant
Lot was a very long time ago and things didn't go the way YOU are comfortable with today. It doesn't mean he was NOT a great servant of God in the same way Moses, who killed a man, was a great servant of God. Only because that is in Quran will you accept that a prophet of God killed a man. If you read the story of Lot you will see it was his daughters that did the deed, Lot was drunk, there were no verses to moderate wine in those days.
-
why is prophete Solom described as wrong doer at the end of his life while AQ say the contrary
I think Quran does mention where Solomon erred too but I'm about to go out so if you can't find it I will look later. Again he did redeem himself with God. Prophets are human beings too and do things wrong, just as Muhammed did. -
why is the OT describing Moses death when he is supposed to have written it
etc etc...
Did Muhammed write the Quran as you think Moses wrote the Torah?
peace