The prefix "MU"
-
Peae Ahmed
I know what you meant. That's why I put in brackets the ayat corresponding to the word/s. So I'm still asking does the reading state it the way you do?
Mohammad is Mohmoodan
Joe
Peace mate
let me try to work out your question
(144)
the word in 3144 should be pronouncd without any tashkil as follow "Mohammad", the double dummah on the last letter makes it pronounced "Mohammadon" but that double dummah was not there when the quran was revealed
the verse clearly proves that Mohammad was a real man who was a messenger like any other messneger appointed by Allah before him, and Allah is warning us the we should not go astry if that messeneger DIED OR KILLED, dies or killed clealy states that Mohammad was a live human at the time of the Quran, sure he must be because he is the one that brought the Quran, the people then didn't find it in the streets, and the Quran took 23 years to be revealed on that man
I have to go to have lunch but I will look at the other verses tonight or tomorrow morning as I need to have an early rest today, I had a hell of a fight with 5 enemies of Islam on the anti Islam web site and I spent all day making movies, I did about 15 movies in the last 3 days alone
cheers
-
Peace Kyle, Ahmad
Please let me make some notes
I think what you have to be aware of is that the names where already existing even before the existence of Islam. So the Nabi Muhammed was named like this as a baby just like his daddy was named Abd Allah (the Servant of God) without being a muslim. These names became muslim names later.
Yes Mohammad means the praised one, so what?,
Not THE praised one, there is no "AL" there, only exalted one.
This confussion arises because you have to translate it somehow into english. English as the most european languages doesn't have that tool like arabic to compound suffixes and prefixes and getting one specific meaning. To translate that into english you just have to use this unfortunate solution in describing it and say the one who... . I am sure if you take the word in the nativeamerican language for "dances with the wolfes" you will find only one word, cause this is how the language is made.
Arabic is a very specific language and to translate it you need sometimes more words to get the meaning in the translation.
So it is The praised one - even without the Al.Kyle, do you wanna say in this thread that Prophet Muhammed didn't live as a real person? I don't get your point of view really. Would you be kind enough to explain once more what was your purpose to find out with this thread?
Regards
warda -
the double dummah on the last letter makes it pronounced "Mohammadon" but that double dummah was not there when the quran was revealed
the verse clearly proves that Mohammad was a real man who was a messenger like any other messneger appointed by Allah before him, and Allah is warning us the we should not go astry if that messeneger DIED OR KILLED, dies or killed clealy states that Mohammad was a live human at the time of the Quran, sure he must be because he is the one that brought the Quran, the people then didn't find it in the streets, and the Quran took 23 years to be revealed on that man
It's ?amma(h) (/dhamma(h)) and not dumma. Isn't that something that a claimed native arab speaker should know of?
When it comes to this imaginary prophet Mohammed...has it never struck you that this "muhammad" always appears out of nowhere and vanishes as fast again? Never inside a context of a story or something that has to do with narratives. We get no clue what so ever to who this is. And the thing is that all of the other prophet names are in fact proper names not conjugated words when "muhammad" in fact IS a conjugation thus no proper name.
-
When it comes to this imaginary prophet Mohammed...has it never struck you that this "muhammad" always appears out of nowhere and vanishes as fast again? Never inside a context of a story or something that has to do with narratives. We get no clue what so ever to who this is. And the thing is that all of the other prophet names are in fact proper names not conjugated words when "muhammad" in fact IS a conjugation thus no proper name.
Now if Mohammed is imaginary, how exactly is it that we got the Koran? Care to explain?
-
Now if Mohammed is imaginary, how exactly is it that we got the Koran? Care to explain?
Glad you asked.
In fact, we cannot know for sure. I for one belive it is a compilation of many a theological texts that were typed down at the time. Many of the texts are christian and jewish legends, some of them preserved to this day, some hasn't survived (except for in the quranic paraphrase) and some of them are simply those that the author (or most likely authors) came up with at the time.To assume that, unless we find proof that someone wrote it, Muhammed did - is simply not substancial, is it?
-
the double dummah on the last letter makes it pronounced "Mohammadon" but that double dummah was not there when the quran was revealed
the verse clearly proves that Mohammad was a real man who was a messenger like any other messneger appointed by Allah before him, and Allah is warning us the we should not go astry if that messeneger DIED OR KILLED, dies or killed clealy states that Mohammad was a live human at the time of the Quran, sure he must be because he is the one that brought the Quran, the people then didn't find it in the streets, and the Quran took 23 years to be revealed on that man
It's ?amma(h) (/dhamma(h)) and not dumma. Isn't that something that a claimed native arab speaker should know of?
When it comes to this imaginary prophet Mohammed...has it never struck you that this "muhammad" always appears out of nowhere and vanishes as fast again? Never inside a context of a story or something that has to do with narratives. We get no clue what so ever to who this is. And the thing is that all of the other prophet names are in fact proper names not conjugated words when "muhammad" in fact IS a conjugation thus no proper name.
Peace El aziz, you are a time waster and obvioulsy you don't know what you talking about
it will be a waste of my valued time to reply to you, therefore I will ignore your comment
peace
-
you are a time waster and obvioulsy you don't know what you talking about
As a matter of fact I do...obviously! )
Was I spot on you're not a native arab speaker? Nevermind...it will be a waste of my valued time to reply to you, therefore I will ignore your comment
...but you didn't.
Now you know about the name of the vocalization mark anyway...
/S
-
Peace el-aziz. I found your view on the origin of the quran very interesting. Any more information?
Peace. -
Peace
the verse clearly proves that Mohammad was a real man who was a messenger like any other messneger appointed by Allah before him
I agree and I would add too that muhammad is and can be such a one. Still you've not shown me where the reading says as you say that muhammad is mohmoodan.
Joe
-
you are a time waster and obvioulsy you don't know what you talking about
As a matter of fact I do...obviously!
Was I spot on you're not a native arab speaker? Nevermind...it will be a waste of my valued time to reply to you, therefore I will ignore your comment
...but you didn't.
Now you know about the name of the vocalization mark anyway...
/S
well I decided to reply to you now
what is your point exactly? let me prove to you kid that you have no point
you said the following
It's ?amma(h) (/dhamma(h)) and not dumma. Isn't that something that a claimed native arab speaker should know of?
based on that I called it dumma
lol lol lol lol lol lol
you are so funny mister and as I told ya you are a real time waster, I don't even need to expalin it, but I will do this time due to the very low IQ you have
it is called this mister smart , now you want to call it in english ?amma(h) (/dhamma(h)) , i really donlt give a fluke because you are talking in ENGLISH smart kid, but I rejeect the way you call it and I want to call it Dumma in english, and I careless you mind it or not
now can you please stop wasting my valued time ?
thanks and all the best to you learning arabic
-
...I will do this time due to the very low IQ you have
That's the kind of thing a 15 year old would say. I didn't excpect this from a grown up man.
...I want to call it Dumma in english, and I careless you mind it or not
But obviously you do care. )
There's no "u" in damma/dhamma, so I just didn't see why you replaced it. End of discussion. -
Peace el-aziz. I found your view on the origin of the quran very interesting. Any more information?
Peace.Unfortunately, there's not too much available in litterature. I suggest you search on google for keywords such as
christian, quran, midrash, midrashim, talmud, origin
...and combine them.There are quite alot of christian information available on the matter even if one has to disregard from at least 65 % when reading it for reasons such as "Muhammad misunderstood..." etc...
I will speak to my favorite rabbi tomorrow and ask if there are any fine book titles on the subject that he knows of. 'Cause I know there are.
/S
-
Peace el-aziz. I found your view on the origin of the quran very interesting. Any more information?
Peace.Unfortunately, there's not too much available in litterature. I suggest you search on google for keywords such as
christian, quran, midrash, midrashim, talmud, origin
...and combine them.There are quite alot of christian information available on the matter even if one has to disregard from at least 65 % when reading it for reasons such as "Muhammad misunderstood..." etc...
I will speak to my favorite rabbi tomorrow and ask if there are any fine book titles on the subject that he knows of. 'Cause I know there are.
/S
One thing you should be careful of, and that is a certain logical fallacy you have committed. It is quite clear that there are things in the Koran that were already known at the time of its revelation... such as the existence of the Jewish Prophets and Jesus... That can hardly be questioned. Also, much of what the Koran says in the way of laws can also be found in Jewish scripture. However, you are assuming because one came before the other, the later one must have copied the earlier one.
Imagine three people, lets call them Andy, Brad, and Charlie who all know each other. Imagine Andy has some kind of information that neither Brad nor Charlie know about. One day, he tells Brad about it, and tells him to write it down. Over the years Brad adds of his own thoughts to this information he had gotten from Andy, even talking about what kind of person Andy was etc. Then a few years later Andy tells the same thing to Charlie and tells him to write it down, but Charlie makes sure not to add anything to this document. So now you've got two documents which say "Andy said that....", one that is longer than the other. Decades or centuries down the road a historian comes across these two documents. He knows that Brad and Charlie knew each other, so he makes the conclusion that because Charlie's document was written years after Brad's, and has no information that is not of Brad's document, it must simply be a copy of some parts of the document. But it truth Charlie's document is not a copy, but actually relates the original information from the original source, and is actually the only version that hasn't been altered.
That is much like the history behind the Bible and the Koran. The Bible came first... God gave the revelations to the Jewish Prophets. Because the tradition was oral for such a long time, there were unfortunate additions and alterations made to it (especially as far as historical tales in the Old Testament/Torah), or even destructive changes in the New Testament by the likes of "Saint" Paul. The Koran's information came from the same source as the Jewish Prophet's information, the only difference being that it was set into writing very quickly, and writing it down meant that we can verify old copies to make sure the Koran hasn't been changed (which, btw, it has, ever so slightly, so sometimes we do need to refer back to the Tashkent copy for a better picture). So, Judaism, Christianity and Islam (at the very least) have gotten their information from the same source (God) though the same mediums (Prophets) but the latest information, the Koran, is the one that is closest to us in time, and was written down very soon after its revelation, which is not the case with the older texts, which were generally passed on orally for generations before being written down.
-
Salaam all,
I enjoy the discussion. If I may, I want to ask something.
If Muhammad is not a human name but a concept, then what makes other "names" such as Musa, 'Isa, Luth, Ibrahim, etc to be human names and not concepts as well?
I was reading Lane's Lexicon and this is what I found about Musa (Mim-Waw-Sin)
Mim-Waw-Sin = Lane's Lexicon, Vol 7, page 272.
shaved;
a certain precious stone, reckoned among jewels, which is very rare;
a certain instrument of iron (with which one shaves);Well, how about that? D Does it fit to other ayats? I haven't gotten into other names. But what do you think?
=adley=
-
Hello
a good note is this
prophet Solaiman name root is S L M,
now when prophet Solaiman sent the bird to the queen of sheba, it carried with it a very strong threat from Solaiman to invade her country and make them slaves
where peace fits here in the name of Solaiman?
cheers
-
Salaam Ahmed,
Good question which I don't have any answers for. Sorry. D
However Ahmed, can Sin-Lam-Mim also means submission? Correct me if I'm wrong please. I understand it to be that based on 4914.
If Sin-Lam-Mim means submission, could it be that Sulaiman was the messenger who carried the order from Allah to make the din of submission a reality? Still, this is just my "what if" question, so there is a lot of holes there. D
=adley=
-
Salaam Ahmed,
Good question which I don't have any answers for. Sorry.
However Ahmed, can Sin-Lam-Mim also means submission? Correct me if I'm wrong please. I understand it to be that based on 4914.
If Sin-Lam-Mim means submission, could it be that Sulaiman was the messenger who carried the order from Allah to make the din of submission a reality? Still, this is just my "what if" question, so there is a lot of holes there.
=adley=
Peace Adley
yes bro it also means to surrender or to submit, as well it means to deliever in addition to mean to greet,
for Solaiman, if we use this root methd to try to fgind what his name means then it can mean three things as we can see
in reality, names mean nothing but entities
peace be with you mate
Take care mate
-
Salaam all,
I enjoy the discussion. If I may, I want to ask something.
If Muhammad is not a human name but a concept, then what makes other "names" such as Musa, 'Isa, Luth, Ibrahim, etc to be human names and not concepts as well?
I was reading Lane's Lexicon and this is what I found about Musa (Mim-Waw-Sin)
Mim-Waw-Sin = Lane's Lexicon, Vol 7, page 272.
shaved;
a certain precious stone, reckoned among jewels, which is very rare;
a certain instrument of iron (with which one shaves);Well, how about that? Does it fit to other ayats? I haven't gotten into other names. But what do you think?
=adley=
The root of Musa's name is not an Arab one but an Arabic transcribation of a Hebrew name - Mosh? - most likely derrived from an Egyptian one - mes meaning son and in Hebrew possibly deliver is the meaning of Mosh?.
If you browse through the Koran you will find that that the name of Moses is in fact not tracable to no Arabic root or any conjugation of the same origin.
-
One thing you should be careful of, and that is a certain logical fallacy you have committed. It is quite clear that there are things in the Koran that were already known at the time of its revelation... such as the existence of the Jewish Prophets and Jesus... That can hardly be questioned. Also, much of what the Koran says in the way of laws can also be found in Jewish scripture. However, you are assuming because one came before the other, the later one must have copied the earlier one.
Imagine three people, lets call them Andy, Brad, and Charlie who all know each other. Imagine Andy has some kind of information that neither Brad nor Charlie know about. One day, he tells Brad about it, and tells him to write it down. Over the years Brad adds of his own thoughts to this information he had gotten from Andy, even talking about what kind of person Andy was etc. Then a few years later Andy tells the same thing to Charlie and tells him to write it down, but Charlie makes sure not to add anything to this document. So now you've got two documents which say "Andy said that....", one that is longer than the other. Decades or centuries down the road a historian comes across these two documents. He knows that Brad and Charlie knew each other, so he makes the conclusion that because Charlie's document was written years after Brad's, and has no information that is not of Brad's document, it must simply be a copy of some parts of the document. But it truth Charlie's document is not a copy, but actually relates the original information from the original source, and is actually the only version that hasn't been altered.
That is much like the history behind the Bible and the Koran. The Bible came first... God gave the revelations to the Jewish Prophets. Because the tradition was oral for such a long time, there were unfortunate additions and alterations made to it (especially as far as historical tales in the Old Testament/Torah), or even destructive changes in the New Testament by the likes of "Saint" Paul. The Koran's information came from the same source as the Jewish Prophet's information, the only difference being that it was set into writing very quickly, and writing it down meant that we can verify old copies to make sure the Koran hasn't been changed (which, btw, it has, ever so slightly, so sometimes we do need to refer back to the Tashkent copy for a better picture). So, Judaism, Christianity and Islam (at the very least) have gotten their information from the same source (God) though the same mediums (Prophets) but the latest information, the Koran, is the one that is closest to us in time, and was written down very soon after its revelation, which is not the case with the older texts, which were generally passed on orally for generations before being written down.
Thanks a lot for your input. I'm not ready to agree with you on the matter of information given by G-d to a prophet compared to Andy letting Charlie in on a secret. The reason is the following G-d does not speak. It is only for the one that seeks G-d that will hear his voice, and that is nothing but an impact on one's inner voice and not an actual voice, agree? As far as I know, at least none of the old "semitic prophets" has ever been able to distinguish any features on G-d's voice like it would be soft, harsh, slowly-spoken etc...
So if the material of the Koran is overall consistent with other sources, is it then not safe to assume that the previous sources (of at least the ones that match) actually the ones copied?
Think about it, it's nothing but an assumption or matter of religious taste - that the Koran would have been recited by or from G-d, isn't it?
Last, the Torah (the five books of Moses) and the Old testament (Torah, Prophets' books and the writings) is not the same thing.
Thanks for a serious post!
/S