Second Shahadah vs Actual Shahadah in the Quran
-
Salaam,
There are many direct commandments in alQuraan for us from Allah, but I don't find any such command or order in any aayat asking us to give shahada. If anyone knows about any aayat, please share with us.
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhanSalaam,
That's the thing mmkhan I am not saying it is a command as such, it is more a realisation. It could even be an option to say it this way - what matters is what you you believe.
The verse would be 318, although I am looking into this further. We appear to have discussed this another member on here and people seem to disagree with the terminology. All we can do is look into this honestly, with open minds and hearts to the knowledge and wisdom Allah provides His servants. I don't know a lot of Arabic, but I don't think I need in to order to understand the Quran. I don't see the reason to discuss that verse further as it would be more helpful for me to use my time to look into this matter further.
The 'shahada' is the Islam (the religion) priest adaptation of the Judaism's Shema.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_YisraelWith strong influence from Christian's Apostle's creed.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_CreedFrom my Point of View (which is non-sectarian), it's not needed / irrelevant.
There are no 'correct shahada' thus there are no 'incorrect shahada' either.As for the 'reminder' I tend to choose
"Treat others as you would like to be treated".Salam / Peace
Salaam,
My point of view is also non-sectarian. I was never even raised in any sect, just the general basics of Islam. I think the fundamental thing that is needed is that the individual believes in one God. However, I won't say anymore as I'd like just to get your perspective on this.
Sorry to ask more questions, but seeing as you are disagreeing that one point in the Quran that could be used as part of an argument for minute details being preserved in the Message - I find that I have more questions.
Do you believe the Quran is preserved then? Where would you say this Reminder is explicitly located in the Quran?
Why isn't the Reminder There is no God but Allah? If there's one thing that comes through clearly on reading the Quran is that belief in one God is the most important thing.If the preserved Reminder is treat others well, then people who prayed to many Gods and never came across the Quran, could simply say this was the reminder I got, couldn't they? People can then start asking questions about the oral recitation, and the way that these easily get corrupted. In my opinion, that would be reason God make the Quran an oral recitation, if you believe the Quran is preserved as it only serves to highlight that God would be preserving it.
You put reminder in inverted commas, is there a word that you think is better to use? Please feel free to point it out, I'm genuinely interested in your perspective and the 'evidence' you use.
After this thread, I actually view the disagreement I had with the atheist I spoke to quite differently now. In addition, the more I see our disagreements, the more natural it seems for Quran only Muslims to be spaced out across the globe and not to form a community - I think that's interesting in and of itself.
-
Salaam,
God knows what is in your hearts and he thus knows if you sincerely believe in Him or not. No reason to witness about something God already knows you believe in.
Apart from the above, it can be colorful for yourself to witness to others that ther is only one God.
God bless you
-
Salaam,
God knows what is in your hearts and he thus knows if you sincerely believe in Him or not. No reason to witness about something God already knows you believe in.
Apart from the above, it can be colorful for yourself to witness to others that ther is only one God.
God bless you
Salam,
Justice will not be dispensed on the basis of what Allah the Exalted knows but on the evidence of others. You have to tell and pronounce for people as to what you believe in and thereafter it will be judged how sincere are you with that belief by actions and conduct.
-
Salaam,
That's the thing mmkhan I am not saying it is a command as such, it is more a realisation. It could even be an option to say it this way - what matters is what you you believe.
The verse would be 318, although I am looking into this further. We appear to have discussed this another member on here and people seem to disagree with the terminology. All we can do is look into this honestly, with open minds and hearts to the knowledge and wisdom Allah provides His servants. I don't know a lot of Arabic, but I don't think I need in to order to understand the Quran. I don't see the reason to discuss that verse further as it would be more helpful for me to use my time to look into this matter further.
Salaam,
Of course, you are free to take your time to look into this matter and not to discuss it further. But I would like to suggest you to look at my earlier replies on this thread about 318.
Also I would like to add my reply to one of our forum members on PM
alQuraan is absolutely logical. Shahada means witness, and alQuraan cannot ask you to be a witness on something that you have never seen and you cannot see in future. Hence, there is no Shahada required. When you accept that there is One God alone by seeing His unlimited creations and finding everything that we face on daily basis in alQuraan and accept it as truth, you are already a muslim.
Parroting something specially in front of others cannot make us muslim. It is solely between an individual and his Lord, God. The person has to admit and accept One single God from his inside with sincerity and honesty. And Allah is enough witness on everything, then why we need others for?
We have to stand alone in front of Allah to give account of all our deeds, no single person can interfere, then why we need others to hear what we parrot something without actually feeling and understanding it or even with feeling and understanding it? Most importantly, I don't find any aayat asking for our shahada, to become a muslim nor otherwise.
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
Salaam,
I think you missed my point. Doing righteous deeds is part of believing in God and He knows what is our hearts. If what we say is not in our hearts He knows it.
Anyway, it is a meaningless discussion.
To witness there is only one God in prayer can be a beneficial reminder for oneself, but God already knows that you feel this way by your conduct.
Saying the shahada explains little to a Christian for example, you have to elaborate it.
God bless you
-
Sorry to ask more questions, but seeing as you are disagreeing that one point in the Quran that could be used as part of an argument for minute details being preserved in the Message - I find that I have more questions.
Do you believe the Quran is preserved then? Where would you say this Reminder is explicitly located in the Quran?
Why isn't the Reminder There is no God but Allah? If there's one thing that comes through clearly on reading the Quran is that belief in one God is the most important thing.Do you believe the Tao Te Ching is preserved?
The answer to that question is my answer to your question.So if it's not in the Quran then it's not worth at all to be preserved as 'reminder'?
Well OK, then how about
"Strike them over the necks, and smite all their fingers and toes!"
as reminder. Surely the above is taken from the Quran.And like I said, feel free to choose any reminder that you like..
If you think "Believe in One God" is the MOST important thing.But well, even the Devil believe in One God but that doesn't make him/her/it a good person isn't it?
Mr Bin Laden and his Al-Qaedas cohorts believe in One God but that doesn't make him a good person isn't it?
Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin believe in One God but that doesn't make him a good person isn't it?If the preserved Reminder is treat others well, then people who prayed to many Gods and never came across the Quran, could simply say this was the reminder I got, couldn't they?
Yes they could, and so does to people who prayed to one God or those who prayed to no God at all..
And at the very least you'll feel safe because they will treat you well.
(e.g. not stealing your belonging, harass you, murder and mutilate you, invade and plunder your village, rape your wife and daughters, forcing conversion to their religion on you, blowing themselves up with a bomb strapped on their waist, sacrifice you to their 'one god' etc..)After this thread, I actually view the disagreement I had with the atheist I spoke to quite differently now. In addition, the more I see our disagreements, the more natural it seems for Quran only Muslims to be spaced out across the globe and not to form a community - I think that's interesting in and of itself.
One thing about 'non sectarian' is you'll stop thinking in 'us and them' framework.
Tolerance will sprung out, thus there's no such thing as 'absolute truth'.Salam / Peace
-
Do you believe the Tao Te Ching is preserved?
The answer to that question is my answer to your question.So if it's not in the Quran then it's not worth at all to be preserved as 'reminder'?
Well OK, then how about
"Strike them over the necks, and smite all their fingers and toes!"
as reminder. Surely the above is taken from the Quran.And like I said, feel free to choose any reminder that you like..
If you think "Believe in One God" is the MOST important thing.But well, even the Devil believe in One God but that doesn't make him/her/it a good person isn't it?
Mr Bin Laden and his Al-Qaedas cohorts believe in One God but that doesn't make him a good person isn't it?
Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin believe in One God but that doesn't make him a good person isn't it?Yes they could, and so does to people who prayed to one God or those who prayed to no God at all..
And at the very least you'll feel safe because they will treat you well.
(e.g. not stealing your belonging, harass you, murder and mutilate you, invade and plunder your village, rape your wife and daughters, forcing conversion to their religion on you, blowing themselves up with a bomb strapped on their waist, sacrifice you to their 'one god' etc..)One thing about 'non sectarian' is you'll stop thinking in 'us and them' framework.
Tolerance will sprung out, thus there's no such thing as 'absolute truth'.Salam / Peace
Salaam Jafar,
I don't understand why you couldn't just say no you don't believe the Quran is preserved? I can only assume that is what you mean.
No, I never said if it's not in the Quran then its not at all worth to be preserved in the reminder. I said in either my response to you or another user that the Reminder can be more than the Quran. I use the word Reminder because I refer to the Quran in discussions here, as do most people here. Reminder is the word I find in translations. I do not know a huge amount of Arabic to start refining that term, although maybe one day Insha'Allah.
Well, creation itself stems from the Creator - His Mercy and Love and our concepts of love and compassion all stem from Him and depend on His guidance. So the treating one another as we should treat ourselves, that's a concept that God imbues in us. I agree it is a fundamental concept in Islam - but I'm just thinking out loud here so to speak. that was one of the points of asking those questions, as I mention in this post.
the questions I asked you would be questions I would ask myself and of course I would direct my questions to God.
I wouldn't say the devil really believes in God - as truly believing would mean you would submit, because you believe in God's power and might. Maybe I simply have a different definition to you, so that's where we've crossed wires.
I definitely believe in having faith and doing good works - in my opinion this all stems from TRULY believing in a Creator who always commands goodness.
God never commanded those things - to truly believe in one God in the definition I use you would submit and align yourself with the will of goodness. You would be humble and sincere, and not use words or actions of harshness. I am using the universal "you" there. And since when did any of my points suggest that I believed in such grotesque things that you mentioned? Those who submit themselves to Allah, do no such thing as Allah does not command such things. You may disagree, that's fine, but I don't wish to get into a battle over semantics in the Quran.
What is true belief if it is not grounded in humility before our Lord, who has decreed as His attribute Mercy?I find your last comment quite ridiculous really. It sounds like you are telling me that I am not tolerant, and that I have an us vs them framework. All I did here, Jafar, was ask you some questions that I have asked of others, that I would ask myself and most of all I would ask Allah swt.
Allah is my Judge and knows my behaviour. It is the atheist I spoke to that swore at me when I had done no such thing to him, when he used a tone that he actually insisted was "facetious" and told me too overlook it etc, so he recognised that it could come across the wrong way. But I accepted, and I was tolerant. All I meant was that he rejected a particular argument, I thought initially it could be because he approaches it differently possibly as an Atheist. Our accepted beliefs mean that we interact with ideas in differing ways. However, considering that people here who classify themselves Muslim might not agree that changes things slightly.
I have always been tolerant on this forum. And when I feel I overstepped the mark, I was the first to point it out even in a case where it could be overlooked anyway. If you did not mean to address me, then the way you worded it was very strange, and everything else that you said that none of my points even suggested like the grostesque acts committed by people. And then the fact that its unnecessary to say about how one will develop tolerance to what I mentioned at all.
My point about us being spaced out across the globe is that we are a small group with a lot of disagreements, we can come together to discuss and learn but do we form a self identified community or are we much more individualistic by nature as Quran alone Muslims? That's what I was getting at.
I am perfectly happy for you to disagree with me, I was genuinely interested in your approach. I have not come across it before. I am disappointed our discussion had to turn out this way.
-
Salaam,
Of course, you are free to take your time to look into this matter and not to discuss it further. But I would like to suggest you to look at my earlier replies on this thread about 318.
Also I would like to add my reply to one of our forum members on PM
alQuraan is absolutely logical. Shahada means witness, and alQuraan cannot ask you to be a witness on something that you have never seen and you cannot see in future. Hence, there is no Shahada required. When you accept that there is One God alone by seeing His unlimited creations and finding everything that we face on daily basis in alQuraan and accept it as truth, you are already a muslim.
Parroting something specially in front of others cannot make us muslim. It is solely between an individual and his Lord, God. The person has to admit and accept One single God from his inside with sincerity and honesty. And Allah is enough witness on everything, then why we need others for?
We have to stand alone in front of Allah to give account of all our deeds, no single person can interfere, then why we need others to hear what we parrot something without actually feeling and understanding it or even with feeling and understanding it? Most importantly, I don't find any aayat asking for our shahada, to become a muslim nor otherwise.
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhanSalaam mmKhan,
I will look over your posts in my considerations, I have found many of your posts helpful and interesting, so too with those on this threads. ) Thank you for your help.
-
-
Waw conjuncts back to for which reason as object of verb is in accusative state like and is its possessive noun.
Salaamun alayka,
Ok, then why the extra " " for al-Rasuul? The word al-rasuul is in same state as the word Allah.
Both are the Subjects as is evident by their nominative case ending. The object of verb is placed in between the two, as is the case in 318.
Thank you very much for this ayaat handshake
I have to study this stucture a bit deeper to understand what is going on.
Who according to you is saying in 2127 this " "?Salaam,
Bender -
Salaamun a3laika,
I have a problem with this translation. Where did this "if" came from? It has to be translated as "When".
Salaamun alayka,
I usually take FM translation and/or change/highlight only the words that i think are important for the subjct.
Sorry, I disagree. You actually missed the important part. Allah never confirms that their shahada is correct. nope
In fact, they are called liars because they give shahada, even after seeing rasool Allah and even in front of him. Because they cannot witness the risaalat part, if Allah is making someone rasool, how another person can witness it, even if he is in front of that rasool? Hence, no shahada is allowed about Allah and/or Rasool. Hope you understand what I am saying, inshaAllah.
Whether they lied or not about knowing that he is rasulu Allah can not be concluded from this verse only. That's why I said their testify is correct, I mean their statement is correct as Allah himself confirms it.
I hope you understand what I am saying nowBy the way, I hope you looked further then only 631
In the next verses it is explained why they are defined as almunafiqoona, it has absolutely nothing to do with their sahada about rasulu Allah.632 They have chosen their oath as a deceit, thus they repel from the path of God. Miserable indeed is what they do.
633 That is because they believed, then disbelieved. Hence, their hearts are sealed; they do not understand.
634 And when you see them, you are impressed by their physical stature; and when they speak, you listen to their eloquence. They are like blocks of wood propped-up. They think that every call is intended for them. These are the enemies, so beware of them. May God condemn them; they have deviated.btw in 635 it even can be concluded that they know he is rasulu Allah
635 And if they are told Come and let the messenger of God ask for your forgiveness, they turn aside their heads, and you see them walking away in pride.
May Allah bless you pr
mmKhanmay Allah bless you 2 pr
Bender -
Salaamun alayka,
Ok, then why the extra " " for al-Rasuul? The word al-rasuul is in same state as the word Allah.
Thank you very much for this ayaat handshake
I have to study this stucture a bit deeper to understand what is going on.
Who according to you is saying in 2127 this " "?Salaam,
BenderSalamun alaika,
Here the verb is NOT repeated, and it begins with Qul.
Same command is given directly by Allah the Exalted by addressing the claimants of belief in 3132
The same command with the use of independent verb each for Allah and the Messenger
(direct address without Qul)
(direct address without Qul)
We find in Qur'aan that most of the injunctions are reiterated by asking the Messenger to verbally convey it to people signified by the imperative verb Qul.
Translation "obey" for is erroneous because it denotes to follow instructions or behave in accordance with a law, rule, or order. On the contrary it means to heartily accept the Word. One has first to heartily accept the verbal command, idea, proposition whereafter he follows-obeys it in practice.
That is the reason that we find the verdict that whoever accepted the Word of the Messenger he has actually accepted the Word of Allah. Why? Because what he verbally stated from the Book is but the Word of Allah.
The first noun of possessive phrase is in accusative case--one who is called-- suggesting that particle Ya is elided. This sentence is the circumstantial clause of preceding sentence---when they both were rendering masonary service for raising the building. This is their prayer. The object of verb is also elided since evidently perceivable by the work they were doing----acceptance of the service. In one to one address mentioning something known both to speaker and addressee, and understood without it, is what is termed redundant.
-
Salaamun alayki,
I will respond to you inshaAllah tonight as I have no time now.
Salaam,
BenderSalaam,
No problem, there's no rush.
-
Salaam,
Well, if another interpretation is possible - then the points others were raising about 318 would contradict it.
Salaamun alayki,
Please take al look at the next picture, I think it's a wel known example.
http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Necker_cube.svg
If you never saw it before you would see it as 1 cube, but if you "play" with your eyes then you can see 2 interpretations of the cube.
Both interpretations of the cube are correct it depends on how one looks at it. I think the same goes also for this verse, actually I think it goes for all verses and probably the verses of The Quran have unlimited interpretations which are all correct. I think the further you advance in knowledge the more interpretations you will see, some similar and some bigger then the others. But ONLY Allah knows the entire interptetation as I believe that He is the ONLY one who can see "the cube" as it really is.btw. I am not sure what points you are referring at.
Although, I think you disagree with that interpretation of testifying oneness of Allah, i.e. testifying your knowledge of the oneness of God. So I'm not sure discussing this point would get us any further in that regard.
first of all, the verse does NOT tell us to do the sahada
second, the way the verse is structured is very complex, the only thing we can say for sure is that that Allah testified.
third, if in the best case scenario the angels and "oloo al3ilmi" also did sahada about the oneness of Allah, then for certain "oloo al3ilmi" does not refer to human beings but to some "higher" creatures who have this knowledge. btw "oloo al3ilmi" is only used 1 time in the whole Quran.If you think that this is a phrase missing and that is why it is important, then it don't understand why anyone would entirely dismiss the way 631 is phrased with a bear witness element - at the start and end of the verse and then in the middle Allah states He knows that Muhammad is the Messenger, not bear witness.
I think it says "knows" because of how the verse goes. I don't know how to explain it but it would sound really starnge if it was "witness".
Yes, about that... so I'm not sure I fully understand your position. Are you saying the Quran is not preserved? Are you saying the Quran is not part of the Reminder? What do you think is the Reminder? Of course, I understand this is simply your interpretation, so don't worry about me taking anyone's word for it. It's late here and I don't have time to check, but I recall verses about reminding people with the Quran. I mean, what is the Quran if not reminding us of knowledge that we already know? I do appreciate that the Reminder can be interpreted as more than just the Quran though.
inshaAllah the next verses will help
1137 And construct the ship under Our eyes and Our inspiration, and do not speak to Me regarding those who are wicked. They will be drowned."
now look at this
5413 We carried him on the owner of slabs and mortar.similar is the link between AlQuran an AlThikr
31 Sad and AlQurani owner of AlThthikriand now this
4144 And had We made IT a non-Arabic Quran, they would have said If only its revelations were made clear! Non-Arabic and Arabic, say For those who believe, it is a guide and healing. As for those who disbelieve, there is deafness in their ears, and they are blind to it. These will be called from a place far away."IT" refers back to Al-Thikri in 4141
4141 Those who have rejected bi-Al-Thikri when it came to them; and it is an lakitabun 3azeezun.InshaAllah it will be know easier to understand.
So, if you do think the Quran is preserved, then if an atheist or any non-Muslim tells you, well if you take a look at all the way the Quran was canonized, the Quran was not preserved, what would you say?
I would ask what their evidence is.
What evidence would you use? I mean the Quran is an oral recitation - the implications are huge if you say it isn't preserved. If you think the 19 miracle is evidence, do you think this mathematical concept is easy to understand for all people?
This is my evidence
482 Do they not reflect on the Qur'an? If it was from any other than God they would have found in it many a discrepancy.
so I would ask them to show me a discrepancy.And no I do not think 19 is a miracle but a fitna.
I would say that if you think that terminology itself and the Message of the Quran is not preserved and conspicious in that regard - such as the use of the word Hadith - then can't any non-Muslim simply say so why didn't the Quran refer to the Hadith today? I mean it uses the word, albeit in a different way in that interpretation, and it states other things to happen in the future, so why not this? After all, they can tell us, the Hadith are what the Quran should be against according to Quran only Muslims?
I understand that the word hadith can be used in different ways, but to say that somehow the term hadith in the Quran cannot refer to the hadith we have today at all - I disagree. I didn't say that the term hadith is defined as the hadiths of bukhari et al.
I did not say that you said that the term hadith is defined as the hadiths of bukhari nope
It was just an exampleSure in some verses it also refers to hadith Bukarie and Co.
Let's take a look at 316
316 And from the people, there are those who will purchase a baseless hadith with which to mislead from the path of God without knowledge, and to make it a mockery. These will have a humiliating retribution.Here it does refer to every baseless hadith that does not only includes Bukharie but every hadith that tries to mislead from the path of Allah.
Just wanted to say, that in order to understand The Quran we have to take the meanings of the words of The Quran as how they are used in The Quran otherwise we will see a lot of discrepancies in The Quran.
I don't know what you mean by this sentence But that is not the case if we take Allah as our only source to explain to us the meanings of the words, this is imo part of the preservation.
Could you clarify? You already stated that the Quran should not be assumed to be The Reminder, so why do you think the Quran is preserved?see above maybe you will understand what I meant.
You know, your last sentence is what my atheist contact said to me. I already mentioned this in my opening post as well as my response.
I agree partly with mmkhan, I'm still pondering the issue about saying a shahadah at all. I think it isn't a formal statement, it is an internal testifying that based upon our knowledge and understanding. We focus on one God in this type of testifying, because that is the foundation of faith and the opposite of shirk. The oneness of God is the pivotal point of faith.
There is not a single human being who have witnessed the oneness of Allah or is witnessing it right now. If one says he witnessed it then the one can come forward and show me how he witnessed it.
I believe with every atom in my body in the oneness of Allah and as far as my knowledge reaches I can conclude that there is no other god besides Allah, but this does not make me a witnesser about the oneness of Allah nope
The only thing I can witness for myself, is that The Book I have between my hands is the truth and in this Book Allah testified about His Oneness.Salaam,
Bender -
Salamun alaika,
Here the verb is NOT repeated, and it begins with Qul.
Same command is given directly by Allah the Exalted by addressing the claimants of belief in 3132
The same command with the use of independent verb each for Allah and the Messenger
(direct address without Qul)
(direct address without Qul)
We find in Qur'aan that most of the injunctions are reiterated by asking the Messenger to verbally convey it to people signified by the imperative verb Qul.
Translation "obey" for is erroneous because it denotes to follow instructions or behave in accordance with a law, rule, or order. On the contrary it means to heartily accept the Word. One has first to heartily accept the verbal command, idea, proposition whereafter he follows-obeys it in practice.
That is the reason that we find the verdict that whoever accepted the Word of the Messenger he has actually accepted the Word of Allah. Why? Because what he verbally stated from the Book is but the Word of Allah.
The first noun of possessive phrase is in accusative case--one who is called-- suggesting that particle Ya is elided. This sentence is the circumstantial clause of preceding sentence---when they both were rendering masonary service for raising the building. This is their prayer. The object of verb is also elided since evidently perceivable by the work they were doing----acceptance of the service. In one to one address mentioning something known both to speaker and addressee, and understood without it, is what is termed redundant.
Salaamun alayka,
thx for your detailed response handshake
I will respond later inshaAllah.Salaam,
Bender -
Salaamun alayki,
Please take al look at the next picture, I think it's a wel known example.
http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Necker_cube.svg
If you never saw it before you would see it as 1 cube, but if you "play" with your eyes then you can see 2 interpretations of the cube.
Both interpretations of the cube are correct it depends on how one looks at it. I think the same goes also for this verse, actually I think it goes for all verses and probably the verses of The Quran have unlimited interpretations which are all correct. I think the further you advance in knowledge the more interpretations you will see, some similar and some bigger then the others. But ONLY Allah knows the entire interptetation as I believe that He is the ONLY one who can see "the cube" as it really is.I would agree that there are different intereptations, but as it also mentions in the Quran, some verses have a very straightforward interpretations. This may not be one of them.
btw. I am not sure what points you are referring at.
first of all, the verse does NOT tell us to do the sahada
second, the way the verse is structured is very complex, the only thing we can say for sure is that that Allah testified.
third, if in the best case scenario the angels and "oloo al3ilmi" also did sahada about the oneness of Allah, then for certain "oloo al3ilmi" does not refer to human beings but to some "higher" creatures who have this knowledge. btw "oloo al3ilmi" is only used 1 time in the whole Quran.Since I made this thread, my position has changed slightly. I never saw 'shahadah' as some formality or doctrine. I saw it as a way to clarify one of the central tenets of the Quran.
I think it says "knows" because of how the verse goes. I don't know how to explain it but it would sound really starnge if it was "witness".
inshaAllah the next verses will help1137 And construct the ship under Our eyes and Our inspiration, and do not speak to Me regarding those who are wicked. They will be drowned."
now look at this
5413 We carried him on the owner of slabs and mortar.similar is the link between AlQuran an AlThikr
31 Sad and AlQurani owner of AlThthikriand now this
4144 And had We made IT a non-Arabic Quran, they would have said If only its revelations were made clear! Non-Arabic and Arabic, say For those who believe, it is a guide and healing. As for those who disbelieve, there is deafness in their ears, and they are blind to it. These will be called from a place far away."IT" refers back to Al-Thikri in 4141
4141 Those who have rejected bi-Al-Thikri when it came to them; and it is an lakitabun 3azeezun.InshaAllah it will be know easier to understand.
I would ask what their evidence is.Thanks, I understand what you mean. Although I may view some of these verses slightly differently from you. However, I see no point in going over this further as its a matter of difference.
The atheist I spoke to has a lot of 'historical' evidence believe me. He's really into history and most of it goes over my head. Although I followed it up with questions about the nature of the recitation today etc, but can't quite recall the response actually.
This is my evidence
482 Do they not reflect on the Qur'an? If it was from any other than God they would have found in it many a discrepancy.
so I would ask them to show me a discrepancy.Ah, I see your approach. You know, I'd love to see the outcome of such a dialogue would be with Klingschor - the atheist I spoke to, a fairly well known 'youtube atheist'. I should put someone on here on call with him and sit back and listen. ;D
And no I do not think 19 is a miracle but a fitna.
I don't know much about it so I am not in a position to call it a fitna.
I did not say that you said that the term hadith is defined as the hadiths of bukhari nope
It was just an exampleI wanted to clarify my position with regards to what you said. I think this is fairly standard in a discussion.
Sure in some verses it also refers to hadith Bukarie and Co.
Let's take a look at 316
316 And from the people, there are those who will purchase a baseless hadith with which to mislead from the path of God without knowledge, and to make it a mockery. These will have a humiliating retribution.Here it does refer to every baseless hadith that does not only includes Bukharie but every hadith that tries to mislead from the path of Allah.
Just wanted to say, that in order to understand The Quran we have to take the meanings of the words of The Quran as how they are used in The Quran otherwise we will see a lot of discrepancies in The Quran.
Yes, I would agree with that. I thought I didn't suggest otherwise - and if you thought I wasn't suggesting otherwise, then I don't really know why we are saying this to each other rather than in the first instance simply agreeing.
see above maybe you will understand what I meant.
There is not a single human being who have witnessed the oneness of Allah or is witnessing it right now. If one says he witnessed it then the one can come forward and show me how he witnessed it.
I believe with every atom in my body in the oneness of Allah and as far as my knowledge reaches I can conclude that there is no other god besides Allah, but this does not make me a witnesser about the oneness of Allah nope
The only thing I can witness for myself, is that The Book I have between my hands is the truth and in this Book Allah testified about His Oneness.Salaam,
BenderExcept I never said that one will witness the oneness of Allah, but they will believe in that oneness based upon knowledge and evidence and their understanding. That is what they are a witness to. I mentioned this to another user in another thread that we all come across evidence etc and as it states in the Quran, some choose to follow and others simply ignore. This explicit reference to testifying, if it is that, can relate to this point and the fact we explicitly want to say we don't ignore this evidence when it comes to us.
Salaamun alayki,
I already did
Salaam,
And you've got a response!
-
Salamun alaika,
Here the verb is NOT repeated, and it begins with Qul.
Same command is given directly by Allah the Exalted by addressing the claimants of belief in 3132
The same command with the use of independent verb each for Allah and the Messenger
(direct address without Qul)
(direct address without Qul)
We find in Qur'aan that most of the injunctions are reiterated by asking the Messenger to verbally convey it to people signified by the imperative verb Qul.
Translation "obey" for is erroneous because it denotes to follow instructions or behave in accordance with a law, rule, or order. On the contrary it means to heartily accept the Word. One has first to heartily accept the verbal command, idea, proposition whereafter he follows-obeys it in practice.
That is the reason that we find the verdict that whoever accepted the Word of the Messenger he has actually accepted the Word of Allah. Why? Because what he verbally stated from the Book is but the Word of Allah.
Salaamun alayka,
It does not solve why sometimes is used ones and sometimes twice. I want to understand the logic behind it.
btw. In a post before you said Waw conjuncts back to for which reason as object of verb is in accusative state like and is its possessive noun.
I can not see the same case endings for "alrrasoola" and "olee alamri", so did not exactly understood why in 459 is in accusative state.
Can you explain further please, but please with as less as possible grammar terms.The first noun of possessive phrase is in accusative case--one who is called-- suggesting that particle Ya is elided. This sentence is the circumstantial clause of preceding sentence---when they both were rendering masonary service for raising the building. This is their prayer. The object of verb is also elided since evidently perceivable by the work they were doing----acceptance of the service. In one to one address mentioning something known both to speaker and addressee, and understood without it, is what is termed redundant.
RED Do not agree with this yet (I have at the moment a different theory but I'll wait till your response)
To who is according you "qaiman bialqisti" referring in 318?Salaam and thanks!!!
Bender -
I would agree that there are different intereptations, but as it also mentions in the Quran, some verses have a very straightforward interpretations. This may not be one of them.
Salaamun alayka,
Straightforward interpretations to who?
Since I made this thread, my position has changed slightly. I never saw 'shahadah' as some formality or doctrine. I saw it as a way to clarify one of the central tenets of the Quran.
RED Yes I understand the reasoning behind the "traditional" sahada.
Ah, I see your approach. You know, I'd love to see the outcome of such a dialogue would be with Klingschor - the atheist I spoke to, a fairly well known 'youtube atheist'. I should put someone on here on call with him and sit back and listen. ;D
Not sure if such a diaglogue would be interesing.
I have had a couple of such conversations, but I learned that most people when they want to discuss The Quran with me, they are actually discussing with me hadiths or history or science etc and never The Quran.I don't know much about it so I am not in a position to call it a fitna.
The Quran calls it a fitna.
I wanted to clarify my position with regards to what you said. I think this is fairly standard in a discussion.
Yes, I would agree with that. I thought I didn't suggest otherwise - and if you thought I wasn't suggesting otherwise, then I don't really know why we are saying this to each other rather than in the first instance simply agreeing.
I think the misunderstanding came in when you mentioned somewhere the word "hadith", then I probably misunderstood you, then you probably misunderstood me, then I probably misunderstood you again, then we came to conclusion that we agree that we were probably misunderstanding in each other and in the end we agreed ;D
Except I never said that one will witness the oneness of Allah, but they will believe in that oneness based upon knowledge and evidence and their understanding. That is what they are a witness to. I mentioned this to another user in another thread that we all come across evidence etc and as it states in the Quran, some choose to follow and others simply ignore. This explicit reference to testifying, if it is that, can relate to this point and the fact we explicitly want to say we don't ignore this evidence when it comes to us.
Salaam,
And you've got a response!
handshake (if I understood you correctly ;D )
Salaam,
Bender