48:29 a false verse?
-
Peace
I wonder what your feelings are on 159? What is actually protected in your opinion?
imho , what is protected in 159 is the messenger (from craziness or jinns)not the reminder...see the context....159 is an answer to allegations from the initial verse of the passage (156) that messenger is crazy or possesed by jinns....
claims that 15/9 speak of the god`s alleged promise of preservation of the reminder contextually doesnt make sense....its would be a claim totaly out of blue, purposeless and it wouldnt make much sense in context.....imho its only that we are used to that meaning/reading that make us see it in that sense.....
in the best case this is a promise that whatever the messenger will say(claiming it from the god- of course) will be sound and correct, that is, divinely inspired...theres nothing in it guaranting that no one will add up a letter, word or verse into the scripture after he has delivered it...
I do not find in the whole book any direct promise of the preservation, at least not in the way people often think it should be preserved(e.i. no one will be able to add or write a word or a letter into any copy of the scripture or into prevailing number of copies of the scripture)
best wishes, Zlatan
-
Peace,
I should mention also that verse 4829 is another verse that uses the word "rahiman" which is one of God's attributes towards humans.
There are 116 instances of "rahim" in the Quran. 114 refer to God and 2 are found in 9128 and 4829 which attribute this term to humans.
Another piece of the puzzle?
I'm still looking for the hadith which mentions the suspect nature of this verse. If anyone has a heads up on this then I would appreciate it. I clearly remember reading about it some time ago but did not reference it unfortunately not thinking too much about it.
Regards.
-
Peace,
I should mention also that verse 4829 is another verse that uses the word "rahiman" which is one of God's attributes towards humans.
There are 116 instances of "rahim" in the Quran. 114 refer to God and 2 are found in 9128 and 4829 which attribute this term to humans.
Another piece of the puzzle?
I'm still looking for the hadith which mentions the suspect nature of this verse. If anyone has a heads up on this then I would appreciate it. I clearly remember reading about it some time ago but did not reference it unfortunately not thinking too much about it.
Regards.
Truth, you are playing very dangerous game...you are waiting for the hadith which makes the book of the god suspect?!.... you count(numerical hadith)...?!
This is almost enough of pieces to solve the puzzle....these are signs that you are infatuated or heavily influenced with man-made sources...be it neo or old Hadith and you are making them criterion over The Criterion....and it should be vice versa!
please do study the book more and stick to its precepts...
As for rhm being attributed to other than the god only in these two instances, its simply not true...remember the messenger was sent AS BUT A MERCY toward mankind...I think Jesus(and his mother?) are described in the same way...
Their mercy is not separated from the god
s, that is, it results/emanates from their sticking to the gods instructions...(the mercy is a mark on their personalities as traces of sujood)This is just like the simile of obedience to the messenger....its not the obedience to the person but to the god of whome the messenger is representative that is needed....why is that so hard to understand to one who has the hadith story behind him?
I have a feeling that many people have rejected Hadith irationaly, based solely on the authority of the numbers and a wish for modernity?
Was this case with you or you have really studied it and have found it inconsistent?
If the answer to the later is yes, then why not applie the same methodology here?
best wishes, Zlatan
-
Dear Zlatan,
Peace,
I should mention also that verse 4829 is another verse that uses the word "rahiman" which is one of God's attributes towards humans.
There are 116 instances of "rahim" in the Quran. 114 refer to God and 2 are found in 9128 and 4829 which attribute this term to humans.
Another piece of the puzzle?
I'm still looking for the hadith which mentions the suspect nature of this verse. If anyone has a heads up on this then I would appreciate it. I clearly remember reading about it some time ago but did not reference it unfortunately not thinking too much about it.
Regards.
Truth, you are playing very dangerous game...you are waiting for the hadith which makes the book of the god suspect?!.... you count(numerical hadith)...?!
The hadith is not a criterion in this matter - I indicated that there may be motivations for such hadith to be fabricated - but again like 9128-129 they may provide evidence of a smoking gun. Nothing more or less.
This is almost enough of pieces to solve the puzzle....these are signs that you are infatuated or heavily influenced with man-made sources...be it neo or old Hadith and you are making them criterion over The Criterion....and it should be vice versa!
please do study the book more and stick to its precepts...
As for rhm being attributed to other than the god only in these two instances, its simply not true...remember the messenger was sent AS BUT A MERCY toward mankind...I think Jesus(and his mother?) are described in the same way...
Zlatan you are distorting the words severely here. Muhammad is a 'rahmat' - a mercy to the world - FROM GOD. The mercy does not belong to Muhammad but to God who sends him out of His Mercy.
Only God is Merciful (in terms of 'rahim') towards things he creates - and the word 'rahim' is not used in relation to humans possessing this quality except for 9128 and 4829.
21107 which desribes Muhammad as a mercy - is not saying that Muhammad possesses mercy - but that God has sent him out of His Mercy.
I hope this is clear.
Their mercy is not separated from the god
s, that is, it results/emanates from their sticking to the gods instructions...(the mercy is a mark on their personalities as traces of sujood)The verse is clear in that it says 'faces' and that it is a 'mark' resulting from 'prostrations'. Your stretching of the words to come up with 'personality' is forced.
This is just like the simile of obedience to the messenger....its not the obedience to the person but to the god of whome the messenger is representative that is needed....why is that so hard to understand to one who has the hadith story behind him?
I have a feeling that many people have rejected Hadith irationaly, based solely on the authority of the numbers and a wish for modernity?
Was this case with you or you have really studied it and have found it inconsistent?
If the answer to the later is yes, then why not applie the same methodology here?
I've never owned a book of ahadeeth - and have never 'really studied it' and nor do I care to or need to. If you feel otherwise then please tell me why you think I should be studying ahadeeth.
Regards.
-
Their mercy is not separated from the god
s, that is, it results/emanates from their sticking to the gods instructions...(the mercy is a mark on their personalities as traces of sujood)The verse is clear in that it says 'faces' and that it is a 'mark' resulting from 'prostrations'. Your stretching of the words to come up with 'personality' is forced.
Have you checked dictionaries for wujooh?.... the meaning of the word wajh and wujooh is far far from being restricted to physical faces...
if i recall well there are many meanings that fit better.... one of the meaning is "self" and thats why i have translated it as personality...
do you denie this meaning or i misunderstood you?
which of the words, exactly, you think i have streched?
best wishes, Zlatan
-
Peace
21107 which desribes Muhammad as a mercy - is not saying that Muhammad possesses mercy - but that God has sent him out of His Mercy.
Muhamad did posses the mercy, he possesed the great reading which is described AS the God`s MERCY at another place, so by reciting this to the people and by sticking to the merciful precepts in it he was merciful to believers.....and any people who stick to its precepts are mutually merciful, as described in 4829...
tell me are you merciful to your children?
if you say not then you are a bad parent....
do you think the messenger wasnt merciful to his followers and adherents?
how can you think in that way?best wishes, Zlatan
-
Dear Zlatan,
Peace
21107 which desribes Muhammad as a mercy - is not saying that Muhammad possesses mercy - but that God has sent him out of His Mercy.
Muhamad did posses the mercy, he possesed the great reading which is described AS the God`s MERCY at another place, so by reciting this to the people and by sticking to the merciful precepts in it he was merciful to believers.....and any people who stick to its precepts are mutually merciful, as described in 4829...
Again the Koran is a mercy 12111, 1782 FROM GOD. It was by no means possessed by Muhammad but merely delivered by him.
People can be kind to one another but mercy as in 'rahim' is a totally separate concept possessed only by God. Why do I say this?
Because 'mercy' is a form of compassion, kindness, or leniency offerred by one who is in charge of justice. God suffices in this role - and is the Merciful.
tell me are you merciful to your children?
if you say not then you are a bad parent....
God is merciful to us all and we (including all my family) are accountable to Him alone.
do you think the messenger wasnt merciful to his followers and adherents?
how can you think in that way?It's not about whether the messenger was kind or not - the word is simply not used for anything other than God's mercy in all but these two verses. One of those has been demonstrated to many people's (not all) satisfaction as a false verse (912 - so there remains 4829 using this word out of the usual way - ie. the other 114 occurrences refer to God alone.
Regards.
-
Peace
Dear Zlatan,
Peace
21107 which desribes Muhammad as a mercy - is not saying that Muhammad possesses mercy - but that God has sent him out of His Mercy.
Muhamad did posses the mercy, he possesed the great reading which is described AS the God`s MERCY at another place, so by reciting this to the people and by sticking to the merciful precepts in it he was merciful to believers.....and any people who stick to its precepts are mutually merciful, as described in 4829...
Again the Koran is a mercy 12111, 1782 FROM GOD. It was by no means possessed by Muhammad but merely delivered by him.
People can be kind to one another but mercy as in 'rahim' is a totally separate concept possessed only by God. Why do I say this?
Because 'mercy' is a form of compassion, kindness, or leniency offerred by one who is in charge of justice. God suffices in this role - and is the Merciful.
tell me are you merciful to your children?
if you say not then you are a bad parent....
God is merciful to us all and we (including all my family) are accountable to Him alone.
do you think the messenger wasnt merciful to his followers and adherents?
how can you think in that way?It's not about whether the messenger was kind or not - the word is simply not used for anything other than God's mercy in all but these two verses. One of those has been demonstrated to many people's (not all) satisfaction as a false verse (912 - so there remains 4829 using this word out of the usual way - ie. the other 114 occurrences refer to God alone.
Regards.
you may continue with your sophismes and apologetics, i leave you here, at least for today, since i have no strenght to write...your reasoning, better said, the lack of it , is a good demonstration of how code 19 infatuation disables functioning of the peoples
mind... and forces them to self-humiliation, one-dimensional thinking and inventing the most petty excuses in order to save the face of the code 19 idol.....i hope youll get out of the code abyss but i just can`t see how ...however the god is capable of all things....best wishes, Zlatan
-
Salaamun alaikum Truth, Zlatan,
I should mention also that verse 4829 is another verse that uses the word "rahiman" which is one of God's attributes towards humans.
The word used is 'ruhama bainahum'. Lets assume that association with Allah's attribute should make one expunge the verse, ok?
Allah is al-kareem.
69/40 says 'verily these are the words of rasulun KAREEM'Allah is al-aziz.
12/30 uses the phrase 'the wife of AL-AZIZ'Allah is al-malik
12/76 uses the word 'malik' for king.Al-Qur'aan is an Allah-centred book. Allah uses knowledge of him to relate back into the world and ourselves, that we may understand the world. He explains shirik/asssociationism in his own way, not in the unquranic way Rashad Khalifa wrote about.
Truth, I respect your right to opine, but in light of Quranic analysis, I'm afraid your hypothesis fails.
thanks and peace.
-
Salaamun alaikum Truth, Zlatan,
I should mention also that verse 4829 is another verse that uses the word "rahiman" which is one of God's attributes towards humans.
The word used is 'ruhama bainahum'. Lets assume that association with Allah's attribute should make one expunge the verse, ok?
Allah is al-kareem.
69/40 says 'verily these are the words of rasulun KAREEM'Allah is al-aziz.
12/30 uses the phrase 'the wife of AL-AZIZ'Allah is al-malik
12/76 uses the word 'MALIK' for king.Al-Qur'aan is an Allah-centred book. Allah uses knowledge of him to relate back into the world and ourselves, that we may understand the world. He explains shirik/asssociationism in his own way, not in the unquranic way Rashad Khalifa wrote about.
Truth, I respect your right to opine, but in light of Quranic analysis, I'm afraid your hypothesis fails.
thanks and peace
-
Salaamun alaikum Truth, Zlatan,
I should mention also that verse 4829 is another verse that uses the word "rahiman" which is one of God's attributes towards humans.
The word used is 'ruhama bainahum'. Lets assume that association with Allah's attribute should make one expunge the verse, ok?
Allah is al-kareem.
69/40 says 'verily these are the words of rasulun KAREEM'Allah is al-aziz.
12/30 uses the phrase 'the wife of AL-AZIZ'Allah is al-malik
12/76 uses the word 'MALIK' for king.Al-Qur'aan is an Allah-centred book. Allah uses knowledge of him to relate back into the world and ourselves, that we may understand the world. He explains shirik/asssociationism in his own way, not in the unquranic way Rashad Khalifa wrote about.
Truth, I respect your right to opine, but in light of Quranic analysis, I'm afraid your hypothesis fails.
thanks and peace
Peace mquran,
I am aware of the other 'attributes' being used in reference to men - but the two terms Al-Rahman and Al-Rahim have been selected out as the key components of the God's exclusive Lordship.
Al-Rahman - the all-powerful and Al-Rahim the all-merciful show the two sides to absolute Lordship of the God and are within the key basmalah at the start of each surah save one.
To believe in God one must accept his absolute power of all creation and submit oneself to His laws. In doing so one comes into the sphere of the God's mercy - though the God's mercy is impossible to quanitify or encompass.
These two 'attributes' are thus the key elements - all the other ones are in effect derivations of this pair and come into the sphere of either the God's power or His mercy.
That's my understanding and I do not believe that humans have or can have the key attributes of 'Rahman' or 'Rahim'.
Peace.
-
Salaamun alaikum truth,
I am aware of the other 'attributes' being used in reference to men - but the two terms Al-Rahman and Al-Rahim have been selected out as the key components of the God's exclusive Lordship.
Al-Rahman - the all-powerful and Al-Rahim the all-merciful show the two sides to absolute Lordship of the God and are within the key basmalah at the start of each surah save one.
Ok, may I surmise then that your criteria is the 'basmala' , truth ? May I ask you for evidence stating that these are 'key components' and whose words may not be repeated elsewhere ? I'm only asking, because if you don't have such evidence, you're using a criteria besides Allah's criteria.
Also, FYI, there is a difference between 'raheem', 'ruhaama' and 'AL-raheem'. The difference is not in quality, but gradation.
Once again, our discussion is purely academic to me. I respect your right to believe however you choose.
thanks and peace.
-
Peace truth, mujahid
21107 which desribes Muhammad as a mercy - is not saying that Muhammad possesses mercy - but that God has sent him out of His Mercy.
See also 961 where the messenger is litteraly called a MERCY to those who believe/are faithfull of you-rahmatun lilladheena amanoominkum
"...he believes in the god and he trusts to the faithful and is a mercy to those who believe among you...." 961
You say he is only sent out of mercy, but how this mercy is manifested ?
what does it mean that the revealed book is a mercy to believers?
How the book is being mercy?
Does it mean that it emanates a certain kind of invisible radiation that make us feel better?
Or we read it and applie? and in the applying it the mercy is contained and realised!!
Surely we know that its not a book of magic but book of helpful remedies and advices and morals....and good news!
the messenger was a godly man who recited the book( containing mercy) and thus he was merciful...he has recited its wisdom, good news, advices, warnings, restrictions of bad things and orders to do good and thus he was merciful, he also constantly applied the books precepts and thus he was merciful....believers are of the people who immitate his example and thus they are merciful to each other...and they recommend each other patience/perseverance and compassion/mercy(9017 allatheena amanoo watawasaw bialssabri watawasaw bialmarhamati )and thus they are merciful
You say no one posses the mercy, but Jesus` followers have had in their hearts kindness and compassion/mercy instiled(5727 wajaAAalna fee quloobiallatheena ittabaAAoohu ra/fatan wa rahmatan )
Of course we do not posses it in an absolute way, its all the gift from the god, the origin of any good is the god....
Also, if the messenger possesed the book or was only delivering it is totally irrelevant....your bringing of this phylosophising was innapropriate...The point is that we have recieved it through his agency and thats why he was called merciful/compassionate...its the same case as with obeying the mesenger... we do not obey muhamad the person but the god`s commandements he brought.... however it was nevertheless appropriate for the god to say "obey the messenger"... Why do you then find innapropriate that He has called him merciful to believers?
If i come out out of this discussion better guided, of course it wont be because of you, though it might happen with a little of your assistence, it was actually the god who has guided me through you, and thus it also wouldnt be innapropriate to say that you have guided me, eventhough the book says the god is the one who guide...and theres no contradiction in it...
To say that no one can be merciful beacuse the God is the merciful is to cut off all the logic... as well as the grammar....
As for the marks on the faces from influence/effect of prostrating , its truly irrelevent if it is meant literarly or methaphorically cause at the end of the day it boils down to methaporical meaning....
As the verse says its their mathal/example/similitude/parable in tawraat...noone would ever claim that the second mathal in the verse-believers being like the plant is literal so why should one insist to understand the first mathal in the same verse literarly, particularly because in the whole book the "methaphorical" meaning is prevailing" ?
best wishes, Zlatan
-
dear all, peace
mquran, zlatan, i do not know if you can still recall my answer to this very questioning regarding the attributes adn their use for human and God adn ...ect.
this issue was raised by ( i think his name was aziz) and it took place on teh quran study by brother joe i think. i remeber stating most fi not all of the attibutes in the book that are sued for men as well as for God.
these are but clear demonstrations of manipulation and/or ignorance.
the language is a material used by human and developed by human. teh work rahim was nothing knew to the arasb fo the time of revelation and they used it as a word meaning what ti means. even the word 'god(s) is used by God to refer to humans! adn that is simply because GOD is a concept rather can a physical thing.
so, pls save your energy and time and focus on serious study.
peace
mh -
My initial feeling was then somehow validated while researching the issue of verses 9128-129 and how there were hadiths that indicated or suggested that these verses were false.
While reading on such issues - I got a shock when I read that 4829 also had a hadith pertaining to it and accusing it of being a false verse. I asked a question about such hadiths some weeks ago but no one seemed to be able to point me to the source of this ahadeeth despite the fact I had not been able to re-find this piece of information.
Now I thought hard about it - and thought about the motivation for such an ahadeeth and there certainly could be reasons to fabricate a ahadeeth against a verse like 4829. I dismissed it.
Then the issue of "seal" of the prophets was discussed at length various times by different parties and as a side finding the issue of "Kana" or "was" a messenger became apparent in relation to "Muhammad".
Today someone on 19.org (Bahman Goharzad) pointed out that of the 4 mentions of Muhammad in the Quran that 3 of them are in the PAST TENSE - ie. 3144, 3340, 472 EXCEPT 4829 which is in the present tense!
I therefore put forward that 4829 is a serious candidate for being a false verse. I want to examine all the evidence for this and I'm sure it is of interest to everyone else. Please put forward any reasons why this proposition about 4829 may be true or false.
It is a heavy issue and I have some more thoughts on this but I'll wait till some other and possibly better arguments emerge.
I don't know whether you have changed your mind or not but I just want to say that I disagree with such approach to quran. For those who are homosexuals, if they use such approach, then I am pretty sure they will argue that 781 is a candidate of false verse.
781 "You come to men with desire instead of women; you are a transgressing people."
That is just an example and the possibility is open.
Having said that, may I request the hadith pertaining to 4829? I am requesting it for my "hadith collections" and not for debating you. Thanks.
-
Peace "andy" and all,
Ive already refuted this. 4829 surely lies within the mathematical pattern based on no 19 and therefore is part of the Quran for sure. Crucial terms like "Allah" and "messenger" are mentioned in it plus the verse no itself. Besides your right as regards to the hadith argument which is definitely not enough to say whther a particular verse belongs to the Quran or not. Infact 4829 is part of another amazing interlock which has only been discovered recently by bro Asad
http//19.org/forum/index.php/t/4275/222/
GOD Bless! -
Peace,
This is where ive discussed this with bro Truth(aka oben) here
http//19.org/forum/index.php/m/18034/222/#msg_18034
In Oben's last post he makes a grand mistake, which i forgot to pt out, by stating that alternatively we could count the word "Allah" in all the unnumbered Bismillahs as well + 5 Allahumma and the no equals xple of 19. HOWEVER he then continues to say that this way well have 114 occurences of Rahim and i ask how can that be? Now since he has counted "Allah" in all uno Bismillahs he also has to do the same for the words "Rahim" and "Rahman" in which case we will have 226 "Rahim" and 57+112= 169 words "Arrahman" both of which are not xples of 19. You see when you use a rule you gotta apply it consitently. Only then is it valid and can be considered significant. GOD Bless!
GOD Bless! -
Harsh and stern are not making Muhammad lose his value, indeed it rising up very high his value. Why because believing in Islam ( a system for life) has to be furqon, able to distinguish what bathil acts and haq acts as taught by Al Quran.
His harsh and setrn to disbelivers are still within corridor of to make them be a moslem, not to eredicate them. The key is da'wah.
-
Salaam brother Jonny,
Peace "andy" and all,
Ive already refuted this. 4829 surely lies within the mathematical pattern based on no 19 and therefore is part of the Quran for sure.As for me, 4829 is the revelation of Allah for sure, so if any pattern or someone's logic does not lie within it, then the pattern or the thought is wrong and not the other way around.