Isa is the prophet ; Jesus is not
-
Peace be upon you Shuiab,
Your posts get further and further away from showing proof, only emotion. That should give you a clue that you may be missing something.
you can clearly see how nothing is sacred or safe. not even muhammad (saw) the prophet of Islam the last messenger.
There is no verse that states that "muhammad" is the last messenger. You have to understand these simple principles before you can even understand what I and others are trying to say.
No matter how much you don't "like" it, you still need to bring some PROOF of your position.
In fact, please tell me your understanding of Isa, son of Mariam.
-
Peace be upon you Marie,
The Lessons and stories are two distinct things and not intercgangeable. We read "IN their stories is a lesson" instead of "their stories is a lesson".
- These are the towns We relate (naqussu) to thou FROM/some of their stories; their messengers had come to them with proofs, but they would not believe in what they had denied before. It is such that God stamps on the hearts of the rejecters.
In 7101 we read "some of their stories are related to us", that implies these towns have other stories in the past, in the same way for 4164.
Yes, the lesson is IN the stories, but the STORIES THEMSELVES are given to us symbolically, unless you believe that someone literally split a sea in two, was burned alive but remained in tact, brought a clay bird to life, helaed the blind/sick/dead, etc. There is no proof that comes to your eyes and ears that will verify such beliefs. However, the LESSONS contained in those stories, which is where we should be focused according to the verse you gave, CAN be verified.
Quote
11100. That is from the news of the towns which We relate (naqussu) to you; some are still standing and some have been wiped-out.Coul we deduce that the towns which have been wiped-out do not exist because we can find no trace of them on earth?
We can VERIFY that corruption destroys ALL TOWNS, then and now.
-
Peace be upon you Grourself,
2573 ? And who, whenever they are reminded of even the Revelations of their Lord, DO NOT FALL AT THEM DEAF AND BLIND (with deaf and blind acceptance).
Yes, good verse you have brought as a reminder. I hope it will become as clear for us all.
Will we continue to just blindly believe what is in the darkness, or will we have faith based on knowledge which brings light so that we can verify our faith?
-
Peace Kyle,
Peace be upon you MQ and all,
oh ? I cant find the verse about seeking knowledge to become Muhammad, Kyle. There's only 4 occurences of 'muhammad' and none seem to indicate this.
No, it won't be found so easily, there is a test involved D
Marie, my statement does not even come close to implying taking a prophet for worship, In fact, one who reaches the level of "muhammadun" spreads the word and is a man/woman of the God.
Sorry for the confusion, this is only what I meant
"Become men of God (rabbaniyyeena) by spreading the knowledge of the Scripture and the teachings you learn there from.?
I respect your extrapolation between Muhammad and Rabbaniy but rabbaniy is well explained in the light of the verse above 379.
Become men of God (rabbaniyyeena) by spreading the knowledge of the Scripture doesn't imply become Mohammad by spreading .., it is only conjecture.
Rabbaniy is rabbaniy, Mohammad is Mohammad and Isa is Isa.
I Will nor respond to your post about the stories od the previous messengers and towns, because we have not the same understanding of the verse 1736.
to Testify with a false testimony, provide a false information, to say a lie such you heard and you did not hear, you saw and you did not see, you know and you don't know "All of this is bad, and disliked by your Lord", this is why "For the hearing, eyesight, and mind, all these you are responsible for."
You didn't get what I meant by my question about the verse 11100
Peace
Marie -
Peace be upon you Marie,
The one who is "muhammadun" will do all of these things. Even if you think "muhammad" is the name of this prophet, we are to take the messengers as an example, so we should do EVERYTHING that they did.
-
Peace Kyle,
Peace be upon you Marie,
The one who is "muhammadun" will do all of these things.
Mohammad is the messenger of Allah and his great mission is detailled in the light of the quran.
Even if you think "muhammad" is the name of this prophet, we are to take the messengers as an example, so we should do EVERYTHING that they did.
As I have said to brother Joe, Mohammad is proper noon and had several meaning.
I'm not sure if we can do EVERYTHING that the prophet Mohammad did.
Some verses is only adressed to him for example, some verses in the chapter 33 )
Peace
Marie -
salam idolfree,
you talk about bringing proof but the problem is you have negated the whole concept of proof.
when you make random meaningless connections and call THAT proof.. then you have negated the entire concept and possibility of a meaningful discussion. when you claim that merely because 2 words are feminine, they are interchangeable purely because it suits your intentions... that is frankly, corrupt.
when i said nothing is sacred, you went and proved me RIGHT by saying
There is no verse that states that "muhammad" is the last messenger. You have to understand these simple principles before you can even understand what I and others are trying to say.
It's amazing to me how arrogantly you continue to say, be patient, etc etc etc... as if you are atop the mountain of enlightenment looking down upon us. Bro, get a grip. Perhaps you are the one who needs to think about it more?
- Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal (FINAL) of the Prophets and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
Now your bizarre reasoning is leading you to say Muhammad is not the last messenger. Frankly this borders on blasphemy.
But I am sure you will be totally ready with some bizarre scheme. Just as Maryam and nafs are feminine and you totally interchanged those words to suit your meanings, i am sure you can pull another rabbit out of your hat again while calmly saying patience brother patience you will understand one day.
honestly, i am not trying to carry out any sort of discussion with you because that is an utter waste of time... i am only pointing out your assault on the Arabic language and assault on logic itself to OTHERS. and i dont need to say much in order to point these facts out... i am just shocked others take you so seriously. it's sad and scary. i repeat, no verse of the quran and no logical argument is safe from your pen apparently.
wassalalm
-
Peace be upon you Marie,
idolfree1 wrote
Peace be upon you Marie,The one who is "muhammadun" will do all of these things.
Mohammad is the messenger of Allah and his great mission is detailled in the light of the quran.
Yes, I agree "muhammad/appreciator" is the messenger of the God, and the mission behind and before him is deatiled in the reading.
Quote
Even if you think "muhammad" is the name of this prophet, we are to take the messengers as an example, so we should do EVERYTHING that they did.As I have said to brother Joe, Mohammad is proper noon and had several meaning.
I disagree that "muhammad" is a proper noun, and I cannot see how you can take "muhammad" as a proper noun, but make "ahmad" not proper,especially when the "prophecy of Isa" was than his description shall be "ahmadu".
I'm not sure if we can do EVERYTHING that the prophet Mohammad did.
Isn't "muhammad" a man like us? Or is he a super hero?
Some verses is only adressed to him for example, some verses in the chapter 33
Which ones can't we do?
-
Peace be upon you Shuiab,
Quote
There is no verse that states that "muhammad" is the last messenger. You have to understand these simple principles before you can even understand what I and others are trying to say.It's amazing to me how arrogantly you continue to say, be patient, etc etc etc... as if you are atop the mountain of enlightenment looking down upon us. Bro, get a grip. Perhaps you are the one who needs to think about it more?
Lets take the example you gave and see who is correct.
- Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal (FINAL) of the Prophets and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
Now your bizarre reasoning is leading you to say Muhammad is not the last messenger. Frankly this borders on blasphemy.
Where in the above verse that you presented or in THIS ENTIRE READING do you see the God say that "muhammad" is the last messenger? WHERE?
What it says is that "muhammad" is the God's messenger. THEN it says that 'muhammad" is the SEAL of the prophets (NABIYEEN). I ask again, WHERE do you see LAST MESSENGER anywhere in this reading? WHERE?Next, since when does the word "seal" mean LAST? Does the God have trouble saying LAST clearly? If you are taking "seal" to mean that the seal is closed on the subject, then I ask you can a seal be removed? What about the seal put on the hearts of the rejectors, do they not have a chance to repent and have the seal removed?
I will leave you with this to think about;
(4034) "And Joseph had come to you from before with the evidences, so you are still continuing in doubt/suspicion from what he came to you with it, until when he perished/died, YOU said 'The God will never send from after him a messenger.' as/like that The God misguides whom He is (a) waster/extravagator , doubtful/suspicious."
-
salams
Next, since when does the word "seal" mean LAST?
idolfree, i knew you were going to make that claim, that is why i added the word final.
go look up the word khaatim/kha-ta-ma... then talk. the word used is KHATIM, not seal.. but honestly, i am not interested in what you are going to look up and have to say... your pseudo-logic could twist even the clearest points into absurdity... and just based on the slightest tentative connections you draw bizarre conclusions (such as maryam=mind because both words are FEMININE). but at LEAST draw them based on the Arabic, not English!
but just fyi, the translation used the word seal to mean the final addition that capped off the long string of nabiyyeen that were sent.
ws
-
Peace be upon you Shuiab,
Why don't you just be honest for a change and admit that you CANNOt find the statement that "muhammad" was the last messenger. PERIOD.
(such as maryam=mind because both words are FEMININE).
I explained the symbolism in detail, if that is all you got from my explanation than that is on you. I still have yet to hear your understanding, I hope it does not have anything to do with a woman bringing a child to earth without a father(seed).
-
salams
haha that's a good one bro. instead of understanding what it means that the quran calls Muhammad (saw) "KHATIM AN-NABIYYEEN," instead of saying well let me think about that or let me research it since i dont know what khatim means... you just reject it out right.
why am i not surprised?
ws
-
Peace be upon you Shuiab,
instead of understanding what it means that the quran calls Muhammad (saw) "KHATIM AN-NABIYYEEN," instead of saying well let me think about that or let me research it since i dont know what khatim means... you just reject it out right.
Reject it? Where have I rejected anything except your understanding? Further, what makes you think I have no researched this? The fact that you cannot show me where this reading states that "muhammad" is the last messenger should speak for itself.
Seal of the prophets does not mean END or LAST prophet, only seal.
But do me a favor, lets deal with one issue at a time so no one gets confused. The word for messenger is rasool, please show us all where "muhammad" is called the last rasool.
-
salams,
well this is really interesting. does anyone else find this interesting?
when it suits his needs, br idolfree makes all sorts of random connections for Arabic words... to the point that he can translate maryam as "the mind."
but when it suits his need he also eliminates the obvious meanings of the word and now claims that in no way does nabi refer to prophethood. amazing. truly amazing. and khatama does not have anything to do with last... only seal, specifically seal and nothing else. amazing... when he wants the meanings are so specific that you can't even apply the word as it was meant... and when he wants it is sooooo expansive that he draws random connections to any concept he wishes.
ws
-
Peace Shuaib,
Why not address the questions rather than addressing the audience? There's no need to make a spectacle out of the dialogue. The truth survives all scrutiny, and surely it will survive this discussion. We're all here to learn and share. So share your thoughts so others can learn, or learn from those who are sharing their thoughts. One can learn even in disagreement.
Peace,
Tay -
salams br tay,
well if you examine my posts, i am not just addressing the audience. i am making points to the audience because no one else is confronting idolfree to the obvious aggregious errors he is making (aka butchering of the Arabic language). like i told him, i am not trying to carry out a discussion with him. i understand your point about learning even from differences and i agree... but again, as i told him...
"when you make random meaningless connections and call THAT proof.. then you have negated the entire concept and possibility of a meaningful discussion. when you claim that merely because 2 words are feminine, they are interchangeable purely because it suits your intentions... that is frankly, corrupt."
And what I said in my last post was very clear. Idolfree's tactics are clear now for all to see.
When it suits his needs, he eliminates the obvious meanings of the word and claims that in no way does nabi refer to prophethood. and khatama does not have anything to do with "last"... to him it only means the English word "seal."
At his whim, he makes the meanings so specific that you can't even apply the word as it was meant... and at his whim he makes the meaning sooooo expansive that he draws random connections to any concept he wishes (such as maryam=mind).
And now these tactics are causing him to make claims which I consider bordering on blasphemy.. an essential concept of Islam is the finality of the prophethood with Muhammad (saw).
wassalam
ps - in case there was ANY doubt (and since idolfree does not have the capacity to by himself research the Arabic words and in this case relies purely on the English word SEAL), let me provide a quick root meaning
khatama - the basic meaning of this is to cover something so that no part of it is visible and no part of it can come out. For example when a seed is planted in the dirt and water is poured over it and hence the dirt hardens so that the seed is safe access to it is closed, that is called khatama. Others also add the essential meaning that it is like the final addition to something that closes that thing... aka SEAL, because after that, the thing is sealed and protected without any further access. Numerous other derivaties point to the meaning that it is the final addition to something.
nabi - to say this does not mean Prophet, but rasool means Prophet is ridiculous. these are 2 descriptions of the same thing. That is tantamount to saying rahman is referring to allah but raheem does not. The Prophets have been described both as rasool and nabi, as well as other things. but of course, when it suits your needs, all of a sudden now rasool means prophet but nabi does not.
-
For clarification from Shuaib,
PeaceYou said
khatama - the basic meaning of this is to cover something so that no part of it is visible and no part of it can come out. For example when a seed is planted in the dirt and water is poured over it and hence the dirt hardens so that the seed is safe, access to it is closed, that is called khatama. Others also add the essential meaning that it is like the final addition to something that closes that thing... aka SEAL, because after that, the thing is sealed and protected without any further access. Numerous other derivaties point to the meaning that it is the final addition to something.My doubt is this
Q1)
If you refer 'khatama' to the Last Prophet that we are al referring to - or, all the prophets ? - or, to the prophethood itself ?
Q2)
'Khatama' - If the word means no access from within outwards; and from without inwards - it means that prophet or prophethood is sealed from access to both ways. Is not the porphet or the prophethood open to all access from all angles and to all corners of the worlds?
Q3)
If there is no need for additional explanation to something already sealed declared as complete, then, why are we disputing so many things for which we have no answer. As a result have not parted ways into multiple sections ? Allah says in The Book in case of dispute entrust the matter with HIM and His Rasul, the Messenger - and never mess things up!
In this case, today where is Rasul? Or the messengers ? Or the Nabi to deal with the scientific matters of today, or the problems of the nuclear era? If you still deny there shall never be Messengers, then we are in the dark; we will be ever in the darkness. what is your view on this ?
You say
nabi - to say this does not mean Prophet, but rasool means Prophet is ridiculous. these are 2 descriptions of the same thing. That is tantamount to saying rahman is referring to allah but raheem does not. The Prophets have been described both as rasool and nabi, as well as other things. but of course, when it suits your needs, all of a sudden now rasool means prophet but nabi does not.The question is
Q4)
2 Discription of same thing in two different ways is not quran for quran cannot contradict between any two of its own sayings. what do you say ? Prophet and Messenger has distinct meanings. Do you deny still and say both the words carry the same meaning ? Explain.
Q5)
Rahman and Rahim are the two names of incalculable attributes of Allah. Rahman alone is not allah and Rahim alone is not allah. All the inumerable attributes collectively take the EFFECT i.e., Allah! Your opinion on this is welcome!
Peace
drfazl -
salam drfazl,
I will respond to your Q's, with A's.
A1) Just read the verse. It is referring to Muhammad (saw).
A2) What is being sealed is nabuwwat or the ability to receive wahi from Allah. The wahi itself that HAS been received is obviously not sealed in the sense of inaccessable since it is being disseminated in a book! But wahi is sealed since no one else can receive wahi and add to the Quran or replace it.
A3) The Quran is the guidance for all matters, past present future.
A4) Rasool and nabi are different words with different meanings that describe 2 sides of the same coin. I will post something on this topic in the future as a separate subject. (I still have to post something on the meaning of Quran first)
A5) Rahman, rahim, and numerous other words are attributes of Allah used to refer to him. If the Quran says mir-rabikum, does that mean it's not from Allah? And if it says min-allah, does that mean it's not from our Rabb? 2 sides of the same coin.
-
Peace Shuaib,
I didn't mean to insinuate that all your posts were addressing the audience, just the last one.
In any case, what are your thoughts on the difference between the word "nabi" and the word "rasool"?
Often, folks describe the difference as the difference between "messenger" and "prophet".
Prophet
- A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
- A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
Messenger
- One that carries messages or performs errands, as
A person employed to carry telegrams, letters, or parcels.
A military or official courier.
An envoy to another person, party, or government. - A bearer of news.
So I can see how one can be both a Prophet and a Messenger, but I don't think they are mutually inclusive or exclusive. Interestingly, to my knowledge, the Qur'an does not say "obey Muhammad", it says "obey the messenger".
Do you think this distinction has any relevance?
Peace,
Tay -
salams tay,
briefly i will say that the terms are used only for the "Prophets," or those who receive divine revelation. i am going to post a separate topic on that when i have the materials prepared.. but in some verses the aspect of nabi is emphasized, and in some the aspect of rasool... a'tee ar-rasool is used instead of a'tee an-nabi because we really are not meant to obey the prophet himself but rather the message he brings us, which the word rasool implies. but i will get into that in a new topic inshallah
wassalam